, Volume 143, Issue 1–2, pp 223–228 | Cite as

Introgressing resistance to bacterial and viral diseases from the middle American to Andean common bean

  • M. Carmen Asensio-S.-Manzanera
  • Carmen Asensio
  • Shree P. Singh


The genetic base of cultivars within market classes of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) is narrow. Moreover, small- and medium-seeded Middle American cultivars often possess higher yield and resistance to abiotic and biotic stresses than their large-seeded Andean counterparts. Thus, for broadening the genetic base and breeding for higher yielding multiple stress resistant Andean cultivars use of inter-gene pool populations is essential. Our objective was to determine the feasibility of introgressing resistance to Been common mosaic virus (BCMV, a potyvirus), and the common [caused by Xanthomonas campestris pv. phaseoli (Xcp) and X. campestris pv. phaseoli var. fuscans (Xcpf)] and halo [caused by Pseudomonas syringae pv. phaseolicola (Psp)] bacterial blights from the Middle American to Andean bean, using gamete selection. Also, we investigated the relative importance of the use of a landrace cultivar versus elite breeding line as the last parent making maximum genetic contribution in multiple-parent inter-gene pool crosses for breeding for resistance to diseases. Two multiple-parent crosses, namely ZARA I = Wilkinson 2 /// ‘ICA Tundama’ / ‘Edmund’ // VAX 3 / PVA 773 and ZARA II = ‘Moradillo’ /// ICA Tundama / Edmund // VAX 3 / PVA 773 were made. From the F1 to F5 single plant selection was practiced for resistance to the common and halo bacterial blights in both populations at Valladolid, Spain. The parents and F5-derived F6 breeding lines were evaluated separately for BCMV, and common and halo bacterial blights in the greenhouse at Filer and Kimberly, Idaho in 2001. They were also evaluated for the two bacterial blights, growth habit, seed color and 100-seed weight at Valladolid in 2002. All 20 F1 plants of ZARA I were resistant or intermediate to common and halo bacterial blights in the greenhouse, but their F2 and subsequent families segregated for both bacterial blights. Segregation for resistant, intermediate, and susceptible plants for common bacterial blight occurred in the F1 of ZARA II. Simple correlation coefficient for common bacterial blight between the F1 and F1-derived F2 families was positive (r = 0.54 P < 0.05) for ZARA II. From the F2 to F5 the number of families resistant to both bacterial blights decreased in both populations. Only four of 20 F1 plants in ZARA I resulted in seven F6 breeding lines, and only one of 32 F1 plants in ZARA II resulted in one F6 breeding line resistant to the three diseases. None of the selected breeding lines had seed size as large as the largest Andean parent. The use of elite breeding line or cultivar as the last parent making maximum genetic contribution to the multiple-parent inter-gene pool crosses, relatively large population size in the F1, and simultaneous selection for plant type, seed traits as well as resistance to diseases would be crucial for introgression and pyramiding of favorable alleles and quantitative trait loci (QTL) of interest between the Andean and Middle American beans.


Andean and middle American gene pool breeding common bean disease resistance Phaseolus vulgaris L. 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Asensio, C., E. Martín & J.L. Montoya, 1993. Inheritance of resistance to race 1 of Pseudomonas syringae pv. phaseolicola in some varieties of beans. Investigación Agraria, Producción y Protección Vegetales 8: 445–456.Google Scholar
  2. Aggour, A.R. & D.P. Coyne, 1989. Heritability, phenotypic correlations, and associations of the common blight disease reactions in beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) inoculated by different methods with strains of Xanthomonas campestris pv. phaseoli (Smith) dye. Euphytica 43: 143–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aggour, A.R., D.P. Coyne & A.K. Vidaver, 1989. Comparison of leaf and pod disease reactions of beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) inoculated by different methods with strains of Xanthomonas campestris pv. phaseoli (Smith) Dye. Euphytica 43: 143–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bagget, J.R. & W.A. Frazier, 1967. Sources of resistance to halo blight in Phaseolus vulgaris. Plant Dis Rep 51: 661–665.Google Scholar
  5. Bliss, F.A., 1971. Inheritance of growth habit and time of flowering in beans, Phaseolus vulgaris L. J Am Soc Hort Sci 96: 715–717.Google Scholar
  6. Coyne, D.P., M.L. Schuster & R. Fast, 1967. Sources of tolerance and reaction of beans to races and strains of halo blight bacteria. Plant Dis Rep 51: 20–24.Google Scholar
  7. Drijfhout, E., 1978. Genetic interaction between Phaseolus vulgaris and bean common mosaic virus with implications for strain identification and breeding for resistance. Agric Res Rpt 872. Center for Agricultural Publishing and Documentation, Wageningen, Netherlands.Google Scholar
  8. Kelly, J.D., P. Gepts, P.N. Miklas & D.P. Coyne, 2003. Tagging and mapping of genes and QTL and molecular marker –assisted selection for traits of economic importance in bean and cowpea. Field Crop Res 82: 135–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kelly, J.D., J.M. Kolkman & K. Schneider, 1998. Breeding for yield in dry bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Euphytica 102: 343–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. McClean, P.E., R.K. Lee, C. Otto, P. Gepts & M.J. Bassett, 2002. Molecular and phenotypic mapping of genes controlling seed coat pattern and color in common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). J Hered 93: 148–152.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Miklas, P.N., 2000. Use of Phaseolus germplasm in breeding pinto, great northern, pink, and red bean for the Pacific Northwest and intermountain region. In: S.P. Singh (Ed.), Bean research, production and utilization. Proceedings of the Idaho bean workshop, pp. 13–29. University of Idaho, Moscow, ID.Google Scholar
  12. Santalla, M., A.M. De Ron & O. Voysest, 2001. European bean market classes. In: M. Amurrio, M. Santalla, & A.M. De Ron (Eds.), Catalogue of bean genetic resources, pp. 79–94. MBG-CSIC- PHASELIEU, Fundación Barrié de la Maza, Pontevedra, Spain.Google Scholar
  13. SAS Institute, Inc., 1985. SAS user’s guide: Statistics. Cary, NC.Google Scholar
  14. Silva, L.O. da, M.A. Pastor-Corrales & S.P. Singh, 1990. Choice of location for bacterial blight evaluation in common bean. Annu Rpt Bean Improv Coop 33: 173–174.Google Scholar
  15. Singh, S.P., 1994. Gamete selection for simultaneous improvement of multiple traits in common bean. Crop Sci 34: 352–355.Google Scholar
  16. Singh, S.P., 1995. Selection for water stress tolerance in interracial populations of common bean. Crop Sci 35: 118–124.Google Scholar
  17. Singh, S.P., 2001. Broadening genetic base of common bean cultivars: A review. Crop Sci 41: 1659–1675.Google Scholar
  18. Singh, S.P. & C.G. Muñoz, 1999. Resistance to common bacterial blight among Phaseolus species and common bean improvement. Crop Sci 39: 80–89.Google Scholar
  19. Singh, S.P., C. Cardona, F.J. Morales, M.A. Pastor-Corrales & O. Voysest, 1998. Gamete selection for upright carioca bean with resistance to five diseases and a leafhopper. Crop Sci 38: 666–672.Google Scholar
  20. Singh, S.P., P. Gepts & D.G. Debouck, 1991a. Races of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris, Fabaceae). Econ Bot 45: 379–396.Google Scholar
  21. Singh, S.P., J.A. Gutiérrez, A. Molina, C. Urrea & P. Gepts, 1991b. Genetic diversity in cultivated common bean. II. Marker-based analysis of morphological and agronomic traits. Crop Sci 31: 23–29.Google Scholar
  22. Strausbaugh, C.A., P.N. Miklas, S.P. Singh, J.R. Myers & R.L. Forster, 2003. Genetic characterization of differential reactions among host group 3 common bean cultivars to NL-3 K strain of bean common mosaic necrosis virus. Phytopathology 93: 683–690.Google Scholar
  23. Taylor, J.D., N.L. Innes, C.L. Dudley & W.A. Griffiths, 1978. Sources and inheritance of resistance to halo-blight of Phaseolus beans. Ann Appl Biol 90: 101–110.Google Scholar
  24. Terán, H. & S.P. Singh, 2002. Comparison of sources and lines selected for drought resistance in common bean. Crop Sci 42: 64–70.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Urrea, C.A., P.N. Miklas & J.S. Beaver, 1999. Inheritance of resistance to common bacterial blight in four tepary bean lines. J Am Soc Hort Sci 124: 24–27.Google Scholar
  26. White, J.W., S.P. Singh, C. Pino, M.J. Ríos & I. Buddenhagen, 1992. Effect of seed size and photoperiod response on crop growth and yield of common bean. Field Crops Res 28: 295–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Carmen Asensio-S.-Manzanera
    • 1
  • Carmen Asensio
    • 1
  • Shree P. Singh
    • 2
  1. 1.Instituto Tecnológico Agrario de Castilla y LeónValladolidSpain
  2. 2.University of IdahoKimberlyU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations