Mapping resistance to Phytophthora root rot identifies independent loci from cultivated (Cicer arietinum L.) and wild (Cicer echinospermum P.H. Davis) chickpea
Major QTL for Phytophthora root rot resistance have been identified in three mapping populations with independent sources of resistance contributed by C. echinospermum and C. arietinum.
Phytophthora root rot (PRR) caused by the oomycete Phytophthora medicaginis is a major soil-borne disease of chickpea in Australia. With no economic in-crop control of PRR, a genetic approach to improve resistance is the most practical management option. Moderate field resistance has been incorporated in the cultivated C. arietinum variety, Yorker, and a higher level of resistance has been identified in a derivative of wild chickpea (C. echinospermum, interspecific breeding line 04067-81-2-1-1). These genotypes and two other released varieties were used to develop one intra-specific and two interspecific F6-derived recombinant inbred line mapping populations for genetic analysis of resistance. The Yorker × Genesis114 (YG), Rupali × 04067-81-2-1-1 (RB) and Yorker × 04067-81-2-1-1 (YB) populations were genotyped using genotyping-by-sequencing and phenotyped for PRR under three field environments with a mixture of 10 P. medicaginis isolates. Whole-genome QTL analysis identified major QTL QRBprrsi01, QYBprrsi01, QRBprrsi03 and QYBprrsi02 for PRR resistance on chromosomes 3 and 6, in RB and YB populations, respectively, with the resistance source derived from the wild Cicer species. QTL QYGprrsi02 and QYGprrsi03 were also identified on chromosomes 5 and 6 in YG population from C. arietinum. Aligning QTL regions to the corresponding chickpea reference genome suggested that the resistance source from C. arietinum and C. echinospermum may be different. The findings from this study provide tools for marker-assisted selection in chickpea breeding and information to assist the development of populations suitable for fine-mapping of resistance loci to determine the molecular basis for PRR resistance in chickpea.
This work was supported by Grains Research and Development Corporation through the project DAN00172 and development of the RIL populations in the project DAN00065 and DAN00094. The PhD candidate A. Amalraj was supported by scholarship from the University of Adelaide and Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics. Ted Knights (EJ) instigated the development of the RIL populations. Steve Harden, biometrician, NSW DPI, generated designs for field experiments.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Barchenger DW, Sheu Z-M, Kumar S, Lin S-W, Burlakoti RR, Bosland PW (2018) Race characterization of Phytophthora root rot on capsicum in Taiwan as a basis for anticipatory resistance breeding. Phytopathology. PHYTO-08-17-0289-RGoogle Scholar
- Butler D, Cullis B, Gilmour A, Gogel B (2009) Reference manual, version 3. Queensland Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, BrisbaneGoogle Scholar
- Croser J, Ribalta F, Navarro MP, Munday C, Bennett R, Kaur P, Ochatt S (2018) In vitro-assisted compression of breeding cycles. Biotechnologies of Crop Improvement, vol 1. Springer, New York, pp 463–486Google Scholar
- Jansen RC (1994) Controlling the type I and type II errors in mapping quantitative trait loci. Genetics 138:871–881Google Scholar
- Kujur A, Upadhyaya HD, Shree T, Bajaj D, Das S, Saxena MS, Badoni S, Kumar V, Tripathi S, Gowda CLL, Sharma S, Singh S, Tyagi AK, Parida SK (2015) Ultra-high density intra-specific genetic linkage maps accelerate identification of functionally relevant molecular tags governing important agronomic traits in chickpea. Sci Rep 5:9468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Malosetti M, Ribaut JM, van Eeuwijk FA (2014) Drought phenotyping in crops: from theory to practice, frontiers E-books. the statistical analysis of multi-environment data: modeling genotype-by-environment interaction and its genetic basis, p 53Google Scholar
- Murray GM, Brennan JP (2012) The current and potential costs from diseases of pulse crops in Australia: GRDC Research Code: CER00002. Grains Research and Development Corporation, Barton ACT Google Scholar
- Schwinghamer MW, Southwell R, Moore K, Knights E (2011) Phytophthora root rot of chickpea. In: W. Chen HCSaFJM (ed) Compendium of chickpea and lentil diseases and pests. The American Phytopathological Society, St Paul, pp 22–25Google Scholar
- Taylor J, Verbyla A (2011) R Package wgaim: QTL analysis in bi-parental populations using linear mixed models. J Stat Softw 2011(40):18Google Scholar
- Team RC (2017) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
- Thudi M, Bohra A, Nayak SN, Varghese N, Shah TM, Penmetsa RV, Thirunavukkarasu N, Gudipati S, Gaur PM, Kulwal PL (2011) Novel SSR markers from BAC-end sequences, DArT arrays and a comprehensive genetic map with 1291 marker loci for chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). PLoS One 6:e27275Google Scholar
- Tinker N, Mather D (1995) Methods for QTL analysis with progeny replicated in multiple environments. J Agric Genom 1Google Scholar
- Varshney RK, Thudi M, Nayak SN, Gaur PM, Kashiwagi J, Krishnamurthy L, Jaganathan D, Koppolu J, Bohra A, Tripathi S, Rathore A, Jukanti AK, Jayalakshmi V, Vemula A, Singh SJ, Yasin M, Sheshshayee MS, Viswanatha KP (2014) Genetic dissection of drought tolerance in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Theor Appl Genet 127:445–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Verma S, Gupta S, Bandhiwal N, Kumar T, Bharadwaj C, Bhatia S (2015) High-density linkage map construction and mapping of seed trait QTLs in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) using Genotyping-by-Sequencing (GBS). Sci Rep 5:17512Google Scholar
- Wang S, Basten C, Zeng Z (2012) Windows QTL Cartographer 2.5. Department of Statistics, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC. Available at: http://statgen.ncsu.edu/qtlcart/WQTL-Cart htm. Last accessed on 23 July 2014Google Scholar
- Yadav SS, Chen W (2007) Chickpea Breeding and Management. CABIGoogle Scholar
- Zeng Z-B (1994) Precision mapping of quantitative trait loci. Genetics 136:1457–1468Google Scholar