Theoretical and Applied Genetics

, Volume 123, Issue 2, pp 307–326

Targeted discovery of quantitative trait loci for resistance to northern leaf blight and other diseases of maize

  • Chia-Lin Chung
  • Jesse Poland
  • Kristen Kump
  • Jacqueline Benson
  • Joy Longfellow
  • Ellie Walsh
  • Peter Balint-Kurti
  • Rebecca Nelson
Original Paper

DOI: 10.1007/s00122-011-1585-9

Cite this article as:
Chung, CL., Poland, J., Kump, K. et al. Theor Appl Genet (2011) 123: 307. doi:10.1007/s00122-011-1585-9

Abstract

To capture diverse alleles at a set of loci associated with disease resistance in maize, heterogeneous inbred family (HIF) analysis was applied for targeted QTL mapping and near-isogenic line (NIL) development. Tropical maize lines CML52 and DK888 were chosen as donors of alleles based on their known resistance to multiple diseases. Chromosomal regions (“bins”; n = 39) associated with multiple disease resistance (MDR) were targeted based on a consensus map of disease QTLs in maize. We generated HIFs segregating for the targeted loci but isogenic at ~97% of the genome. To test the hypothesis that CML52 and DK888 alleles at MDR hotspots condition broad-spectrum resistance, HIFs and derived NILs were tested for resistance to northern leaf blight (NLB), southern leaf blight (SLB), gray leaf spot (GLS), anthracnose leaf blight (ALB), anthracnose stalk rot (ASR), common rust, common smut, and Stewart’s wilt. Four NLB QTLs, two ASR QTLs, and one Stewart’s wilt QTL were identified. In parallel, a population of 196 recombinant inbred lines (RILs) derived from B73 × CML52 was evaluated for resistance to NLB, GLS, SLB, and ASR. The QTLs mapped (four for NLB, five for SLB, two for GLS, and two for ASR) mostly corresponded to those found using the NILs. Combining HIF- and RIL-based analyses, we discovered two disease QTLs at which CML52 alleles were favorable for more than one disease. A QTL in bin 1.06–1.07 conferred resistance to NLB and Stewart’s wilt, and a QTL in 6.05 conferred resistance to NLB and ASR.

Supplementary material

122_2011_1585_MOESM1_ESM.doc (172 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 172 kb)
122_2011_1585_MOESM2_ESM.doc (52 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOC 52 kb)
122_2011_1585_MOESM3_ESM.doc (66 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (DOC 66 kb)

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chia-Lin Chung
    • 1
    • 5
  • Jesse Poland
    • 2
    • 6
  • Kristen Kump
    • 3
  • Jacqueline Benson
    • 2
  • Joy Longfellow
    • 1
  • Ellie Walsh
    • 1
    • 7
  • Peter Balint-Kurti
    • 4
  • Rebecca Nelson
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Plant Pathology and Plant-Microbe BiologyCornell UniversityIthacaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Plant Breeding and GeneticsCornell UniversityIthacaUSA
  3. 3.Department of Crop ScienceNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA
  4. 4.U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Department of Plant PathologyNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA
  5. 5.Department of Plant Pathology and MicrobiologyNational Taiwan UniversityTaipeiTaiwan
  6. 6.U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Department of AgronomyKansas State UniversityManhattanUSA
  7. 7.Department of Plant PathologyThe Ohio State UniversityWoosterUSA

Personalised recommendations