Advanced Plant Molecular Genetics PDF

Advanced Plant Molecular Genetics Lecture 1 Plant genomes: Markers of evolutionary history and drivers of evolutionary change Pamela S. Soltis Abstract Plant genomes and evolutionary history: Plant genomes are crucial for understanding the evolutionary history (phylogeny) of plants, which spans nearly a billion years and includes nearly 500,000 living species. Phylogenetic and genomic studies help reveal how species evolve and go extinct. These insights can aid in improving crops, finding new medicines, and developing conservation strategies. Diversity in plant genomes: Plant genomes vary significantly in size, structure, and complexity. Although this diversity likely relates to the diversity in plant forms and functions, the connection remains poorly understood. Genomes carry traces of evolutionary processes like whole-genome duplication and population changes, which scientists are beginning to decode. Genomic evolution: Plant genomes are not only records of past evolutionary events but also active drivers of changes in plant chemistry, morphology, and ecology. For example, whole-genome duplications (polyploidy) have driven major innovations in plant structures and stress responses, particularly in flowering plants (angiosperms). Current knowledge gap: Despite their importance, we know relatively little about plant genomes. Genome sequences exist for fewer than 1% of plant species, limiting our ability to address global challenges such as food security, new medicine discovery, and species conservation in the face of climate change. Introduction Summary Green plants' diversity and evolution: The green plant group, Viridiplantae, includes nearly 500,000 species and spans about a billion years of evolutionary history. These species range from tiny single-celled organisms like Chlamydomonas to the largest trees like the giant sequoia and clonal quaking aspen. The visible diversity of green plants includes algae, mosses, ferns, conifers, and flowering plants (angiosperms). Genome diversity in plants: Along with phenotypic diversity, plants also show great variation in genome size, content, and structure. For example, the smallest genome in a photosynthetic eukaryote is found in Ostreococcus tauri (~12 Mb), while in angiosperms, genome sizes can vary nearly 2,500-fold, with Genlisea having ~60 Mb and Paris japonica possessing 149 Gb. Ferns and gymnosperms generally have larger genomes, with ferns averaging ~12–14 Gb and gymnosperms around 18 Gb. Genome evolution processes: The diversity in genome size is due to various evolutionary processes, including the proliferation of repeated sequences, polyploidy (whole-genome duplication), and reductions in genome size. These processes leave evolutionary signatures in plant genomes, reflecting the development of the plant branch in the Tree of Life. Through events like polyploidy, plant genomes not only record evolutionary history but also drive changes that shape plant diversity over time. GENOMES AS SIGNATURES OF EVOLUTIONARY HISTORY DNA 1. Understanding Evolutionary History (Phylogeny): Plant genomes provide insights into the evolutionary relationships between different plant species, helping to map out their phylogenetic tree. 2. Record of Life Now: Genomes offer a snapshot of the current genetic makeup of plants, reflecting their present-day biological functions and adaptations. 3. Record of Life in the Past: By comparing current genomes with those of ancient or extinct plants, scientists can reconstruct historical evolutionary events and environmental changes. 4. Predictive Tool for Science: ○ Basic Science: Helps understand fundamental genetic processes and evolutionary mechanisms. ○ Applied Science: Facilitates the development of improved plant varieties, discovery of useful compounds, and formulation of conservation strategies to protect plant diversity and ecosystems. The study of plant phylogeny has significantly evolved over the past 35 years, primarily using DNA markers from the plastid genome rather than the large and complex nuclear genome. The plastid genome's technical and analytical advantages, such as its abundance, conserved size, structure, and typical maternal inheritance, made it a key tool in tracing evolutionary history. Several key findings have emerged from plastid-based phylogenetic studies. 1. First, the relationships among bryophytes (mosses, liverworts, hornworts) have been debated, with new analyses suggesting these groups form a clade rather than a grade, overturning previous assumptions about their evolutionary history. 2. Similarly, the widely accepted model of the first flower as a large, Magnolia-like structure has been debunked, with new evidence suggesting it was smaller, with an indeterminate number of spirally arranged organs. 3. Additionally, the distinction between monocots and dicots, a long-standing classification system based on the number of embryonic leaves, has been invalidated by plastid studies. Instead, a basal grade of three lineages precedes the monocot-eudicot split. 4. Another example involves the water lilies (Nymphaeales), which were previously grouped with the lotus lily (Nelumbo). However, molecular phylogenies show that Nelumbo is more closely related to sycamores and proteas in the eudicot group, challenging previous superficial similarities between water lilies and lotuses. These findings are mainly from plastid and nuclear genomes and are consistent with mitochondrial data, though fewer studies focus on the mitochondrial genome due to its slower evolutionary rate and structural variability. Molecular studies have also shed light on the divergence times of angiosperms, with estimates dating their origin to the Upper Triassic (~209 million years ago) despite the oldest known fossils being from the Cretaceous (~132 million years ago). This "Jurassic gap" presents challenges in reconciling fossil records with molecular dates. Lastly, while plastid-based phylogenies provide crucial insights, nuclear-based phylogenies, such as those generated by the One Thousand Plants Transcriptome Project, offer additional perspectives. These nuclear analyses largely agree with plastid-based trees but highlight areas of disagreement that may be explained by ancient hybridization and introgression. Such findings suggest that hybridization events at deeper evolutionary levels may account for discordance between plastid and nuclear trees, opening new avenues for further research into plant evolution. GENOMES AS DRIVERS OF EVOLUTIONARY CHANGE This passage discusses the role of genomes as drivers of evolutionary change, particularly through the expansion and contraction of gene families, transposable elements, and whole genome duplication (WGD). Gene Family Expansion: Variations in genome size, gene number, and gene function can be driven by the expansion of gene families, as seen in green plants. Transposable Elements: These elements can change gene expression and are responsible for differences in genome size, particularly in large genomes like those of conifers. Whole Genome Duplication (WGD): WGD, or polyploidy, involves the doubling of an organism's entire chromosome set. Though most such mutations are eliminated by selection, WGD can be beneficial, allowing gene copies to evolve new functions. It can also activate transposable elements, causing increased mutation rates, altered gene regulation, and new phenotypes. Polyploidy in Plants: Polyploidy is especially common in ferns and flowering plants, playing a significant role in plant evolution. For example, many angiosperms are the product of ancient genome duplication events. WGD and Evolutionary Innovation: Ancient polyploidy events are often linked to periods of environmental stress and can lead to rapid adaptation. WGD can result in immediate speciation and create genetic diversity that fuels evolution. WGDs are associated with both changes at the genomic level, like gene loss and epigenetic modifications, and at the phenotypic level, leading to new traits. WGD and Species Diversification: There is evidence that WGD is often associated with increased rates of species diversification, although this association is not universal. Some ancient WGDs are linked to the development of key innovations, like morphological traits in monocots and defense mechanisms in plants. Further studies are needed to explore the precise relationship between WGD and species diversification, including the interaction of WGD with life-history traits and ecological factors. PLANT GENOME SEQUENCES: A SMALL, BUT GROWING RESOURCE FOR EVOLUTIONARY STUDIES This passage focuses on the limited availability of plant genome sequences and the growing efforts to expand genomic resources for evolutionary study: Limited Genomic Data: Despite the vast diversity of plant species, genomic data is available for only a small fraction of them, primarily focused on economically important clades like grasses or model organisms like Arabidopsis. As of recent estimates, only 3% of land plants have sequenced genomes, with significant gaps in knowledge regarding mosses, gymnosperms, and angiosperms. Definition of "Genome Sequence": The definition of a "genome sequence" has evolved with technological advances. While many species have some genomic data available, chromosome-level assemblies are often needed for more comprehensive studies. The number of sequenced genomes varies depending on how completeness is defined. Ongoing Genomic Projects: Several large-scale initiatives aim to address the shortage of plant genomic data. The 10KP Project seeks to sequence the genomes of 10,000 plant species, and the Open Green Genomes Project focuses on sequencing 50 plant genomes chosen based on phylogenetic placement. The Earth BioGenome Project aims to sequence the genome of every species on Earth, starting with one species per taxonomic family. Significance of Plant Genomes: Plant genomes contain not only the genetic blueprint of an individual organism but also its evolutionary history. Dynamic processes such as hybridization, introgression, and whole genome duplication (WGD) have left signatures in genomes, contributing to evolutionary adaptation and diversification. Broader Implications: Beyond evolutionary biology, plant genome sequencing can address critical societal challenges, including climate change, food security, new medical discoveries, and conservation strategies. The overall goal of these projects is to increase the diversity of species with available genomic data, providing valuable insights into plant biology and evolution. R we there yet? Advances in cloning resistance genes for engineering immunity in crop plants Renjie Chen Abstract This abstract highlights significant advancements in the cloning of resistance (R) genes, which play a crucial role in plant immunity. Over the past 30 years, progress in recombinant DNA technology, genome sequencing, bioinformatics, and plant transformation has made it possible to clone R genes not only from model species but also from crop plants and their wild relatives. To date, more than 450 R genes have been isolated, and the molecular mechanisms through which these genes activate plant immune responses are now well understood. These breakthroughs offer exciting opportunities for engineering disease-resistant crops, allowing for genetic protection from pathogens instead of relying on pesticides. Introduction The introduction discusses the critical issue of plant pests and diseases, which cause significant global yield losses, estimated at 20-30%. Researchers are working to mitigate these losses and reduce the use of pesticides by enhancing plant immunity. Resistance (R) genes, which can provide full or partial protection against pests and pathogens, are key to this approach. While R genes are often polymorphic in natural plant populations, breeders have been targeting these genes from wild ancestors and landraces for over a century to improve crop resistance. For instance, in bread wheat, more than 40% of the 467 designated R genes have been introduced into elite varieties through wide crossing. In the past 30 years, advances in cloning and molecular characterization of R genes have greatly improved the understanding of plant-pathogen interactions. This progress has facilitated the engineering of disease-resistant crops, such as transgenic wheat and potato plants, which exhibit broad-spectrum resistance to wheat stem rust and potato late blight, respectively. This introduction provides an overview of three decades of research in R gene cloning, emphasizes its practical applications, and highlights the technological advances that have enabled R gene isolation. A three-decade bonanza of R gene cloning The section describes the remarkable progress in R gene cloning over the past three decades. The first R gene, Hm1, was cloned from maize in 1992, marking the beginning of a significant wave of discoveries. Following this breakthrough, many additional R genes were cloned from various crops and model plants, including rice (Xa21), flax (L6), tomato (Cf-9), and Arabidopsis (RPS2). These initial successes provided critical insights into plant immunity and set the stage for the molecular isolation of over 450 R genes from diverse species. The majority of these R genes have been cloned from Arabidopsis, cereal crops like wheat and rice, and solanaceous crops such as tomato, potato, and pepper. These studies have revealed that plants have evolved a sophisticated pathogen surveillance system involving both cell-surface and intracellular immune receptors. Most cloned R genes encode nucleotide-binding, leucine-rich repeat (NLR) intracellular immune receptors or cell-surface receptors. However, there are exceptions, such as Hm1, which encodes an enzyme that neutralizes a virulence toxin from a fungal pathogen. Other R genes encode various proteins like receptor-like cytoplasmic kinases, ubiquitin proteins, and transcription factors. The significance of NLRs is underscored by their representation in plant genomes, where they can make up to 2% of all protein-coding genes. Despite the many R genes already cloned, there is ongoing interest in identifying new R genes, especially to address major diseases in key crops. Recent advancements in enabling technologies and resources often use R gene cloning as a proof-of-concept, highlighting the continued importance and potential of this research area. Revealing the mechanisms of resistance proteins This section provides a detailed overview of the mechanisms by which plant resistance proteins function and the challenges involved in studying these mechanisms. Key Points: 1. Plant Immune System Mechanisms: ○ Pattern-Triggered Immunity (PTI): Involves pattern recognition receptors (PRRs) on the cell surface that detect conserved pathogen-, damage-, or herbivore-associated molecular patterns (PAMPs, DAMPs, HAMPs). This detection triggers defensive responses. ○ Effector-Triggered Immunity (ETI): Involves receptor-like proteins (RLPs and RLKs) or intracellular nucleotide-binding, leucine-rich repeat (NLR) proteins that recognize pathogen-secreted effectors. ETI often follows PTI if pathogens evolve effectors that compromise PRRs. 2. Zig-Zag Model: ○ This model explains the evolutionary interplay between PTI and ETI. Pathogens evolve effectors to bypass PTI, leading to the development of ETI mechanisms in plants. This triggers further evolution in pathogens to evade ETI, creating an ongoing evolutionary arms race. 3. Refinements to the Model: ○ Recent studies have shown that PTI and ETI are not entirely independent but often potentiate and rely on each other for function, refining the Zig-Zag model. 4. Mechanisms of R Proteins: ○ R proteins can induce immune responses through nine possible mechanisms. However, the specific mechanisms of many cloned R genes remain unknown due to a lack of detailed follow-up studies identifying their effectors or PAMPs. 5. Challenges in Studying R Proteins: ○ The accumulation and activation of R proteins are tightly regulated, and their activation can trigger hypersensitive cell death responses, making it challenging to study their signaling pathways. 6. Structural Insights: ○ Recent advances include: Arabidopsis NLR HOPZ-ACTIVATED RESISTANCE1 (ZAR1): The inhibition and activation state structures were determined, revealing the ZAR1 resistosome complex, which includes ZAR1, RESISTANCE RELATED KINASE1 (RKS1), PBS1-LIKE2 (PBL2UMP), and dATP. The activated ZAR1 resistosome forms a pentameric complex that acts as a calcium ion channel. Wheat Sr35 Resistema: The first resistosome structure characterized from a crop species. Sr35 directly detects AvrSr35, in contrast to the indirect recognition of AvrAC by ZAR1. 7. Application to Crop Protection: ○ The structural insights gained have practical implications for crop protection research. For instance, the engineered barley Sr35 homolog that recognizes AvrSr35 demonstrates the potential for developing disease-resistant crop varieties based on these findings. This section underscores the complexity of plant immune responses and the ongoing efforts to decipher the detailed mechanisms underlying resistance proteins. The structural insights gained from recent studies are paving the way for advancements in crop protection and the development of more resilient plant varieties. The three-stride long jump to R gene cloning The isolation of R genes is a crucial first step in R gene cloning, involving several key processes to ensure accurate identification and characterization of the resistance gene. Here's a detailed breakdown of the process: Step 1: Isolation of the R Gene 1. Genetic Isolation: ○ Objective: To isolate the R gene in a background that minimizes interference from other genes. ○ Approach: Typically, a bi-parental population is created by crossing resistant and susceptible plant varieties. This helps in characterizing the R gene's resistance spectrum and understanding its mode of inheritance (dominant, semidominant, or recessive). ○ Importance: Accurate isolation helps in interpreting candidate genes and designing functional validation experiments in subsequent steps. 2. Mapping the R Gene: ○ Initial Mapping: Once the R gene is isolated, a rough mapping interval is determined using genetic analysis. This involves screening large segregating populations to identify recombinants. ○ Refinement: Genotypic and phenotypic characterization of recombinants helps reduce the mapping interval, which is essential for pinpointing the exact location of the R gene. 3. Challenges and Solutions: ○ Germplasm Complexity: In germplasm with many major and minor effect genes, multiple generations of crossing and selection may be needed. To expedite this process, optimized light and temperature regimes (e.g., speed breeding and speed vernalization) can be employed. ○ Association Studies: In undomesticated germplasm, association mapping can leverage naturally occurring recombination events and mutations accumulated over thousands of generations. This approach helps identify discrete linkage disequilibrium blocks that delimit the R gene. 4. Recent Advances: ○ Example: Association mapping in a shotgun-sequenced panel of the wild grassy wheat ancestor Aegilops tauschii led to the discovery and cloning of the powdery mildew resistance gene WHEAT TANDEM KINASE4 (WTK4). This demonstrates how advanced techniques can uncover important resistance genes in wild relatives of crop plants. ○ Panel Genotyping: Once a genetic panel is genotyped, repeated phenotyping can further map and validate new resistance genes. Step 2: Sequence Acquisition, Assembly, and Annotation of a Map Interval Once the genetic map has been developed and the mapping interval for the R gene has been identified, the next step involves obtaining and analyzing the sequence of the interval. This step is crucial for isolating and characterizing the R gene at a molecular level. 1. Sequence Acquisition Objective: To obtain the physical sequence of the genetic interval flanked by markers around the R gene. This sequence can reveal variations such as sequence differences, copy number variations, or presence/absence variations. Methods: ○ Genome Assembly: De novo genome assemblies can be generated from sequencing technologies like Illumina, PacBio, and Oxford Nanopore. These assemblies help define the sequence of the region of interest. ○ Examples: Successful isolation of genes such as Sr62 (stem rust), Lr9 (leaf rust), and Pm69 (powdery mildew) has been achieved using these sequencing technologies [34, 18, 35]. 2. Sequence Assembly Objective: To construct a complete and accurate assembly of the sequence data obtained from sequencing technologies. Tools and Techniques: ○ BRAKER2: This tool offers highly accurate ab initio annotation of plant genomes, providing a foundational annotation framework. ○ Specialized Tools for NLRs: Tools like NLR-Annotator are specifically designed to annotate NLR genes by scanning for NLR-associated sequence motifs. 3. Annotation Objective: To interpret the sequence data by identifying and annotating genes within the mapped interval. Methods: ○ Annotation Tools: Use tools like BRAKER2 for general annotation and NLR-Annotator for specific annotation of NLR genes. ○ Transcriptome Profiling: Analyze transcriptome data to identify expressed genes and potentially cryptic genes, which can help prioritize the genes of interest. This approach helps in filtering out non-expressed genes. 4. Gene Cloning Objective: To clone and functionally validate the R gene from the annotated sequence data. Methods: ○ NLR Exome Capture: Techniques like MutRenSeq can be used for capturing and sequencing NLR exomes, allowing for the identification of mutations in the R gene. ○ Transcriptome Sequencing: Use MutRNASeq to sequence RNA from loss-of-function mutants and map mutant reads to the wild-type assembly to identify relevant genes [34, 38]. ○ Iso-Seq: Employ PacBio Iso-Seq technology on cDNA to generate full-length transcript sequences, facilitating rapid cloning of genes like Lr9 (MutIsoSeq). Step 3: Functional Validation of Candidate Genes Functional validation is a critical step in confirming that a candidate R gene is responsible for disease resistance. This process involves verifying that the gene in question actually contributes to resistance, and it often requires advanced genetic and transformation techniques. 1. Functional Analysis of Dominant R Genes Objective: Confirm that a candidate R gene is required for resistance by demonstrating its function in a resistant background. Methods: ○ Loss-of-Function Mutants: Obtain mutants with a loss-of-function in the R gene using methods like chemical mutagenesis or gene editing. A higher frequency of mutations in the candidate gene compared to the expected rate indicates its role in resistance. ○ Complementation Groups: If multiple complementation groups are involved, validating resistance might require identifying and analyzing each group independently. 2. Functional Analysis of Recessive R Genes Objective: Determine the role of a recessive R gene, which might suggest: ○ Molecular Function: A gene that operates below the resistance threshold (e.g., NLRs). ○ Susceptibility Gene: A gene necessary for pathogen proliferation. ○ Suppression in Heterozygotes: A gene that is suppressed when heterozygous. Example: TaPsIPK1 in wheat, required for susceptibility to rust pathogens. CRISPR/Cas9-mediated inactivation of TaPsIPK1 conferred disease resistance in a susceptible wheat background. 3. Advances in Plant Transformation Technology Objective: Improve the efficiency of introducing and validating R genes in plant genomes. Methods: ○ Agrobacterium Transformation: Traditionally used for producing transgenic plants, but can trigger defense responses in monocots, limiting efficiency. Modified Agrobacterium strains expressing type III secretion systems and effectors (e.g., AvrPto) can block immune responses, improving transformation efficiency by 250-400% [41, 42]. ○ Morphogens: Overexpression of plant development regulator genes like BABY BOOM, WUSCHEL, GRF4, and GIF1 can enhance transformation and regeneration efficiencies. These morphogens also shorten the time required to recover primary explants [43, 44]. 4. High-Throughput Screening Objective: Test large numbers of candidate R genes to identify functional ones. Methods: ○ High-Throughput Transformation Protocols: Used to functionally test numerous NLRs in wheat, leading to the identification of genes providing field resistance to stem rust. This approach facilitates the identification of functional R genes that might not be deployable in conventional breeding. To Think About: 1. Differences Between Human and Plant Genomes: ○ What are the main differences between human and plant genomes, and why do these differences exist? 2. Polyploidy: ○ What is polyploidy? 3. Value of Plant Genomes: ○ Why is having access to plant genomes valuable? 4. Plant Pathogen Surveillance System: ○ What components broadly make up the plant pathogen surveillance system? 5. Cloned R Genes: ○ What is the significance of having cloned R genes? 6. Linkage Mapping vs. Association Mapping: ○ What are the main differences between linkage mapping and association mapping? 7. Gene Cloning Steps: ○ Refer to Chen 2024, Figure 2, and understand the three steps involved in cloning a gene, which will be important for the final lecture. Lecture 2 A genetic analysis of adult plant resistance to stripe rust in the wheat cultivar Kariega V. P. Ramburan A: Identifying Quantitative Trait Loci Abstract Summary The investigation focused on the wheat cultivar Kariega, which exhibits complete adult plant resistance to stripe rust in South Africa. The study aimed to assess the variability and nature of stripe rust resistance in a population of 150 doubled haploid lines derived from a cross between Kariega and the susceptible cultivar Avocet S. Key Findings: QTL Identification: Two major and two minor Quantitative Trait Loci (QTLs) for adult plant stripe rust resistance were identified in Kariega. ○ Major QTLs: QYr.sgi-7D: Located on chromosome 7D, contributes 29% to the phenotypic variance. This QTL is believed to correspond to the adult plant resistance gene Yr18. QYr.sgi-2B.1: Located on chromosome 2B, contributes 30% to the phenotypic variance. It is associated with a chlorotic and/or necrotic response. ○ Minor QTLs: Detected through QTL analysis, demonstrating higher resolution compared to the mixture model analysis. Resistance Forms: QYr.sgi-7D and QYr.sgi-2B.1 represent different forms of resistance. QYr.sgi-7D might offer more durable resistance compared to QYr.sgi-2B.1. Genetic Model: The mixture model analysis suggested an epistatic genetic model involving two independent genes combining in a classical manner. Introduction Summary Stripe rust of wheat, caused by Puccinia striiformis f. sp. tritici, was first detected in South Africa in 1996. Since then, the disease has spread across all wheat production areas, leading to significant damage during epidemic years. Although several locally bred wheat cultivars show resistance to stripe rust, this resistance was incidental as no deliberate breeding or selection for resistance occurred before the disease's detection. The initial pathotype introduced was 6E16A-, followed by variants 6E22A- and 7E22A- in subsequent years. Resistance in many cultivars appears to be monogenic, which limits its durability, as evidenced by the early breakdown of resistance in cultivars like Hugenoot and Carina. Globally, stripe rust has impacted wheat production significantly. In Australia and New Zealand, over 20 pathotypes have been identified since the original introduction in 1979. In the USA, 42 pathotypes have been detected, including 21 new virulence combinations. Several Adult Plant Resistance (APR) genes have been identified and mapped to specific chromosomes. For example: Yr18: Located on chromosome 7D. Yrns-B1: Located on 3BS in the German breeding line LGst.79-74. Yr30: Also on 3BS in the cultivar Opata 85. Yr29: On 1B from cultivar Lalbahadur. Yr31: Located on 2BS in cultivar Pastor. YrKat: Found on chromosome 2DS in cultivar Katepwa. YrCk: A temperature-sensitive gene on chromosome 2DS in cultivar Sunco. Camp Remy: Identified two QTLs on chromosomes 2A and 2B. This study focuses on QTL analysis of stripe rust APR in a mapping population derived from the cross between Kariega and the susceptible cultivar Avocet S. The objectives are to determine the number and chromosomal location of QTLs associated with APR and to compare field and growth chamber results for rapid detection of APR. An early analysis using a mixture model was conducted to assess whether the continuous distribution of disease scores could be attributed to multiple underlying QTLs. Materials and Methods Summary Plant Material Doubled Haploid (DH) Population: 150 lines derived from a cross between Kariega and Avocet S. Kariega: A red spring wheat cultivar with flag leaf-tip necrosis and adult plant resistance (APR) to stripe rust and leaf rust. Contains the Yr18/Lr34 rust-resistance genes. Avocet S: A white-seeded, stripe rust-susceptible selection from the Australian cultivar Avocet. Known to carry Sr26 from Thinopyrum elongatum and Lr13, but the presence of these genes in Avocet S has not been confirmed. Disease Evaluation Field Trial: Conducted on 2 June 2000 at the PANNAR Research Station, Greytown, KwaZulu-Natal. The trial consisted of 150 DH lines planted in randomized complete blocks with six Kariega and two Avocet S control plots per block. The field was inoculated with pathotype 6E22A- of Puccinia striiformis f. sp. tritici. Disease severity was scored on 11 September (early) and 28 September (final) using the modified Cobb scale, and host reaction type was scored on a 1-7 ordinal scale. Growth Chamber: Plants were grown in a controlled environment (25°C, continuous light) and inoculated with pathotype 6E22A- of Puccinia striiformis f. sp. tritici. Disease reactions were assessed 12 days after inoculation using a 0-4 scale and converted to a 1-7 ordinal scale. Linkage Maps Linkage maps were used for QTL analysis. Leaf-tip necrosis (Ltn) was scored and mapped as a marker rather than a quantitative trait due to difficulties in scoring and large numbers of missing values. Data Analysis Disease Scores: 1. Field scores for leaf area infected were transformed to arcsin (p) for percentage data. Host reaction-type scores were assigned numerical values (1-7) for analysis. 2. Mean host reaction type scores (field early and final) and growth chamber scores were transformed to ln(score + 1). Repeatability: Scores were analyzed for repeatability using standard analysis of variance and intraclass correlation coefficients. Correlations between growth chamber and field scores were also examined. QTL Analysis: Performed using Map Manager QTX (version 15) for interval mapping with and without marker cofactors. A permutation test with 1,000 iterations was used to determine statistical significance. Initial gene segregation detection was conducted using a mixture model method, with analysis performed using FINMIX. This methodology provided a comprehensive approach to evaluating stripe rust resistance in the DH population, assessing both field and controlled environment conditions to determine the effectiveness and stability of resistance QTLs. Results and Discussion Disease Scores: A severe and uniformly distributed epidemic occurred among the plots in the field trial. The presence of pathotype 6E22A- was confirmed through infection of stripe rust differential cultivars with rust collections from the trial site. At the initial assessment, Avocet S displayed reactions between 70S and 80S, indicating susceptibility with 70-80% leaf area infected. In contrast, Kariega showed no signs of infection. By the final assessment, Avocet S consistently scored 100S, while Kariega ranged from trace to 10% leaf area infected, denoting resistance. The disease responses of the DH (doubled haploid) lines covered the full range from these extremes, showing significant variability. A similar range of variation was observed in growth chamber tests. The flag leaves of the plants, although small (5-10 cm in length), provided adequate tissue for scoring. The infection types on flag leaves ranged from flecking to large susceptible-type pustules, with many intermediate phenotypes. Low reactions often involved excessive chlorotic flecking, and Z-reactions (where the leaf base supports more susceptible reactions than the tip) were commonly observed. The host reaction type (R to S rating scheme) was found to be a more reliable estimate of stripe rust response compared to the flag-leaf infection types. Several DH lines with a three-flag leaf infection type were rated in the R (resistant) to MR (moderately resistant) range on a whole plant basis. Consequently, the R to S rating scheme was used for analyzing growth chamber results. Kariega exhibited a ~12-flag-leaf infection type and an R whole-plant response, whereas Avocet S was rated as 3C and MSS (moderately susceptible to susceptible), respectively. The repeatability of disease scoring was assessed through coefficients of correlation (Table 1), considering percentage leaf area infected averaged over three scorers (Z.P., W.B., and L.B.) and host reaction type averaged over two scorers (Z.P. and W.B.). The high positive correlation between scorers contributed significantly to the resolution of subsequent QTL (quantitative trait locus) analyses. The correlations between replications (blocks) for reaction type (0.965) and transformed leaf area infected (0.928) indicate the relative magnitudes of genetic variance for these traits, translating to field heritabilities of 0.932 for reaction types and 0.811 for transformed leaf area infected on a single-score basis within replications (Falconer and Mackay, 1996). Estimation of heritability under growth chamber conditions was not possible due to lack of replication. The low correlations between growth chamber and field scores for reaction type may align with the results of the QTL analyses, which are discussed further. QTL Analysis: Field data revealed QTLs for stripe rust resistance on chromosomes 7D and 2B. On chromosome 7D, QYr.sgi-7D was identified with the marker Xgwm295-7D located about 10 cM from the peak. Due to limited polymorphism on 7D, a dense linkage map could not be constructed, leaving flanking markers 34 cM apart. The Lr34/Yr18 complex is known to be present on this chromosome and is linked to the gene Ltn, which was mapped 12 cM from the closest marker. Lr34 could not be mapped in this study due to interference from other Lr genes. However, QYr.sgi-7D is likely associated with Yr18, given its linkage to known stripe rust resistance genes in the pedigree analysis and previous studies. On chromosome 2B, QYr.sgi-2B.1 was detected across a 25 cM region, with Xgwm148-2B being the closest marker. Previous research has identified QTLs for stripe rust resistance in this region and noted the presence of resistance genes such as Yr27, Yr31, and Yr32. Pedigree analysis suggests a relationship between QYr.sgi-2B.1 and these genes, but further investigation is needed. QYr.sgi-7D explains a higher proportion of variance in percentage leaf area infected (27-29%) compared to host reaction type (9-18%), indicating partial resistance. This gene is expressed as partial resistance rather than a chlorotic or necrotic reaction. Conversely, QYr.sgi-2B.1 explains a higher proportion of variance in host reaction type (33-46%) than in leaf area infected (17-30%). This suggests that the resistance associated with QYr.sgi-2B.1 may become more apparent under warmer conditions that favor chlorotic or necrotic reactions. The study highlights the importance of scoring disease reactions at multiple time points during the growing season. QYr.sgi-2B.1 likely conditions a more complex resistance involving necrotic, chlorotic, and sporulating stripes, while QYr.sgi-7D provides partial resistance with less host-cell death, possibly offering greater durability. Minor QTLs identified in the study were inconsistently detected across different tests, indicating challenges in accurately assessing their effects. The presence of different QTLs in field and growth chamber tests suggests genotype-environment interactions. Notably, a significant QTL detected in the growth chamber (QYr.sgi-4A.2) appears to be derived from the susceptible parent Avocet S, which may have retained some resistance traits under certain conditions. QTL Mixture Model Analysis: The transformed percentage leaf area infected scores for the Kariega Avocet S DH population were analyzed using a mixture model, which suggests that three underlying normal distributions overlap. This model estimates the mean and variance for each of these distributions and their contributions to the total observed variance. The analysis, which used an unequal variance option, indicated that one of these distributions has markedly smaller variance. The residual variation is attributed to minimal environmental effects, measurement errors, and minor QTLs, given the high heritability of the traits (broad-sense heritability: 0.93 for percentage leaf area infected and 0.81 for host reaction). The results support a digenic epistatic model with a 1:2:1 ratio among DH genotypes: 1. AABB (resistant genotype from Kariega) 2. aabb (susceptible genotype from Avocet S) 3. AAbb and aaBB (partial resistance genotypes) This model suggests an F2 ratio of 9:6:1, which is a modified Mendelian di-hybrid ratio (9:3:3:1) indicating "duplicate genes with cumulative effect." The QTL analysis identified two major QTLs, supported by the mixture model, and also detected minor QTLs using field data, showing the higher resolution of marker QTL linkage analysis. While the mixture model analysis is valuable, especially for materials without constructed linkage maps, it does not match the QTLs identified with the linkage analysis. To Consider: 1. Genetic/Linkage Map: ○ What is a genetic or linkage map? 2. Mapping Population: ○ What is the significance of the mapping population used in the study? 3. Phenotyping: ○ What does phenotyping mean? Describe the process. 4. Mapping Population Value: ○ What is the importance of the mapping population developed in this study? 5. Parent Features: ○ What are the characteristics of the parent plants used? What phenotypes and genotypes are expected from the resulting population? 6. Phenotyping and QTL Detection: ○ How is the detection of true QTLs ensured? Consider the nature of the stripe rust disease scores. 7. Criteria for Linkage Maps: ○ What criteria should a linkage map meet before proceeding with a QTL study? 8. QTL Analysis: ○ What is QTL analysis? Review Table 2 and Figure 1 to understand it. 9. Genetic vs. Physical Map Distances: ○ What are the implications of the differences between genetic and physical map distances when cloning a gene? Introduction to QTL mapping in plants Rashmin M Dhingani (Does not appear in the slides but has been uploaded onto Sunlearn) Abstract: Understanding the genetic basis of complex, quantitative traits involves integrating modern molecular genetic techniques with powerful statistical methods. Advances in molecular marker technology now enable the analysis of both simple and quantitative traits, facilitating the identification of individual genes responsible for these traits. Molecular markers can be used to tag Quantitative Trait Loci (QTLs), helping to evaluate their contributions to phenotypic traits and accelerating selection and genetic improvement. Constructing detailed linkage maps with extensive genome coverage for localized genes or QTLs associated with economically important traits, such as disease resistance in plants, is crucial. These maps support marker-assisted selection, comparative mapping between species, anchoring physical maps, and map-based gene cloning. This review introduces molecular markers, mapping populations, and the fundamental principles of QTL map construction. Introduction: Traditional plant breeding has made significant contributions to crop improvement but has been slow and less effective in addressing complex traits such as yield, quality, drought, and disease resistance. Advances in biotechnology now allow us to analyze both simple and complex traits and identify the specific genes involved. Major developments in genetics, including the identification of DNA as the genetic material, the discovery of its double-helix structure, and the creation of molecular markers, have greatly advanced our understanding of genetics and plant breeding. Quantitative traits, which are common in crop plants and involve multiple genes, were initially studied under the term 'polygenes,' now commonly known as Quantitative Trait Loci (QTLs). A QTL is a genomic region associated with a quantitative trait and can include single or multiple linked genes. Identifying QTLs requires more than just phenotypic evaluation and was revolutionized by two key developments in the 1980s: the discovery of DNA markers and the creation of statistical tools to analyze these markers alongside trait data. Genetic mapping, or linkage mapping, involves determining the positions of genes on chromosomes and their distances from one another. This technique, first introduced in 1911, helps identify regions on chromosomes that control simple and quantitative traits through QTL analysis. QTL mapping is crucial for understanding genetic resistance to diseases, allowing for the identification and development of crop varieties with multiple disease resistances. This paper reviews the basics of genomic map construction and explains how major genes and QTLs can be detected. It aims to be a valuable resource for plant breeders, physiologists, pathologists, and other plant scientists. QTL Mapping QTL mapping is based on Sutton's chromosomal theory of inheritance, which states that genes segregate through chromosome recombination during meiosis (sexual reproduction). According to Mendel's second law of independent assortment, alleles of one gene segregate independently of alleles of another gene when they are on different chromosomes. However, this law does not always apply to genes located on the same chromosome. Morgan's studies showed that when two genes are on the same chromosome, the proportion of parental gene combinations is higher than non-parental types due to physical linkage. This means genes close together on the same chromosome do not assort independently and are more likely to be inherited together. Recombination describes the process where genetic material is exchanged between chromosomes during meiosis, creating new gene combinations. During meiosis, homologous chromosomes pair up and exchange sections through a process called crossing over. This results in gametes with new gene combinations, known as recombinants. The frequency of recombination between two loci estimates how often these loci are separated by crossing over. If genes are on different chromosomes, they assort independently with a recombination frequency of 50%. If they are on the same chromosome, they have a lower recombination frequency. QTL Mapping involves finding a link between a genetic marker and a measurable phenotype. For instance, if all tall pea plants in a study have a specific genetic marker, it suggests that a QTL for plant height is associated with this marker. The process involves dividing the mapping population based on genotypes at the marker locus and using statistical methods to determine if different genotypic groups differ significantly in the trait of interest. Key Steps for QTL Mapping 1. Development of Mapping Population: Create a mapping population by crossing two parental strains with contrasting traits (e.g., one highly disease-resistant and one susceptible). This population will be used to identify genetic variations associated with the traits of interest. 2. Selection of Molecular Markers and Development of Linkage Map: Choose suitable molecular markers that can differentiate between the parental strains. Develop a saturated linkage map that covers the entire genome, showing the positions of these markers. 3. Genotyping of Mapping Population: Perform genotyping on the mapping population to determine the genetic makeup of each individual with respect to the selected markers. 4. Linkage Analysis Using Statistical Software: Use appropriate statistical software to analyze the linkage between molecular markers and the trait of interest. This involves correlating marker genotypes with phenotypic data to identify regions of the genome associated with the trait (QTLs). Mapping Population for QTL Mapping 1. Requirement: A segregating plant population derived from sexual reproduction is essential for constructing a linkage map. The parents should differ in one or more traits of interest (e.g., disease resistance) to identify a wide range of polymorphic markers across the genome. 2. Population Size: ○ For detecting QTLs with major effects, a mapping population of 200-300 individuals is usually sufficient. ○ For QTLs with smaller effects, a larger population (around 500 individuals) is needed. 3. Selection of Mapping Population: ○ The choice of population depends on the experiment's objectives, the type of molecular markers (dominant or codominant), timeframe, and resources. ○ Different types of populations include: F2 Populations: Derived from selfing F1 hybrids. Simple and quick to produce, allowing measurement of both additive and dominance gene actions. Backcross (BC) Populations: Created by crossing F1 hybrids back to one of the parents. Requires several generations for high genome recovery from the recurrent parent. Recombinant Inbred Lines (RILs): Developed by inbreeding F2 plants over several generations. They are homozygous, allowing measurement of additive gene actions. Double Haploids (DHs): Produced by chromosome doubling from pollen grains. Useful in species amenable to tissue culture (e.g., rice, barley). 4. Advantages and Disadvantages: ○ F2 Populations: Quick to develop, can measure both additive and dominance effects. Disadvantage: Highly heterozygous and not suitable for long-term propagation. ○ RILs and NILs: Provide true-breeding lines that can be propagated indefinitely. Major disadvantage: Time-consuming to produce (6-8 generations). ○ DHs: Produce true-breeding lines quickly if tissue culture is feasible. However, this method is not applicable to all species. 5. Mapping Population and Marker Type: ○ Co-dominant Markers: Provide more detailed genetic information in F2 populations compared to dominant markers. They are also more informative in RILs, NILs, and DHs because these populations are near-homozygous. ○ Dominant Markers: Can be useful in BC populations if loci in the recurrent parent are homozygous and if polymorphic markers are present in both parents. Contrasting Molecular Markers 1. Types of Genetic Markers: ○ Morphological Markers: These are phenotypic traits or characters that are visible in the plant's appearance. ○ Biochemical Markers: These include allelic variants of enzymes, known as isozymes, that are detectable biochemically. ○ DNA (Molecular) Markers: These reveal variations in DNA sequences and are the most widely used due to their high abundance and reliability. 2. Advantages and Disadvantages: ○ Morphological Markers: Advantages: Easy to observe and straightforward to use. Disadvantages: Limited in number, influenced by environmental factors and developmental stages. ○ Biochemical Markers: Advantages: Useful for identifying variations in enzyme activities. Disadvantages: Limited number and can be affected by environmental and developmental factors. ○ DNA Markers: Advantages: Numerous, not influenced by environmental conditions or developmental stages, and highly precise. Disadvantages: Require sophisticated techniques and equipment for detection. 3. Types of DNA Molecular Markers: ○ Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphisms (RFLPs): Advantages: High resolution and reproducibility. Disadvantages: Labor-intensive and time-consuming. ○ Microsatellites (Simple Sequence Repeats, SSRs): Advantages: High polymorphism and abundance. Disadvantages: Can be complex to analyze and require specific primers. ○ Expressed Sequence Tags (ESTs): Advantages: Useful for identifying gene expression. Disadvantages: Limited to expressed genes and can be costly. ○ Cleaved Amplified Polymorphic Sequences (CAPS): Advantages: Simple and cost-effective. Disadvantages: Requires prior knowledge of the sequence. ○ Randomly Amplified Polymorphic DNA (RAPD): Advantages: Rapid and requires no prior sequence information. Disadvantages: Low reproducibility and sensitivity to PCR conditions. ○ Amplified Fragment Length Polymorphisms (AFLPs): Advantages: High resolution and large number of markers. Disadvantages: Complex and requires specific equipment. ○ Inter Simple Sequence Repeats (ISSR): Advantages: High reproducibility and requires no sequence information. Disadvantages: Limited to certain species and can be complex to analyze. ○ Diversity Arrays Technology (DArT): Advantages: High-throughput and cost-effective. Disadvantages: Limited to certain species and less informative about specific genes. ○ Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs): Advantages: High density, low cost, and stable. Disadvantages: Requires detailed knowledge of the genome and complex analysis. 4. Classification of Molecular Markers: ○ Detection Methods: Hybridization-Based: Techniques like RFLP. PCR-Based: Techniques like SSRs, RAPD, and AFLP. DNA Sequence-Based: Techniques like SNPs and ESTs. ○ Polymorphism: Polymorphic Markers: Can distinguish between different genotypes. Monomorphic Markers: Cannot distinguish between different genotypes. ○ Marker Types: Co-dominant Markers: Can differentiate between homozygotes and heterozygotes (e.g., SSRs). Dominant Markers: Cannot distinguish between homozygotes and heterozygotes (e.g., RAPD). Understanding these markers' types and characteristics helps in selecting the appropriate marker system for genetic mapping and analysis. Genotyping of Mapping Population by Polymorphic Molecular Markers 1. Importance of Polymorphism: ○ To construct a linkage map, it is essential to have sufficient polymorphism between the parents. Polymorphic markers reveal differences between the parents, which is crucial for identifying and mapping traits. 2. Selecting Molecular Markers: ○ The choice of DNA markers depends on their availability and their suitability for the species being studied. Markers that show higher levels of polymorphism are preferred as they are more effective for detecting and mapping traits. ○ Cross-pollinating species generally have higher DNA polymorphism compared to inbreeding species. For inbreeding species, selecting parents that are distantly related can help achieve the necessary polymorphism. 3. Constructing Dense Genetic Linkage Maps: ○ Step 1: Identification of Polymorphic Markers: Markers with significant polymorphism between the selected parents are identified and tested. ○ Step 2: Screening the Population: The identified markers are tested across the entire mapping population, from F1 plants to all F2 individual plants. ○ Genotyping: Each molecular marker is assessed in every individual of the F2 population to study its segregation. 4. Measuring Phenotypic Variation: ○ Alongside genotyping, phenotypic variation in the F2 population is measured. This helps in correlating the genetic data with observable traits. 5. Statistical Analysis: ○ The segregation ratios of markers and phenotypic traits are analyzed using biostatistical methods or software. The actual ratios are compared to the expected Mendelian ratios: Co-dominant Markers: Expected segregation ratio is 1:2:1 (AA:Aa ). Dominant Markers: Expected segregation ratio is 3:1. ○ Deviations from these expected ratios can indicate distortions or other factors affecting segregation. 6. Considerations: ○ While most markers follow Mendelian segregation, some may show distorted ratios, which should be analyzed and accounted for during the mapping process. This process ensures that the linkage map is constructed accurately, enabling the effective identification and mapping of quantitative trait loci (QTLs). Linkage Analysis of Markers 1. Purpose and Tools: ○ Linkage maps are constructed using computer programs by coding data for each molecular marker across individuals in a population. ○ Various software packages for linkage analysis include JoinMap, MAPMAKER/EXP, GMENDEL, LINKAGE, and Map Manager QTX. JoinMap is widely used due to its robustness. 2. Logarithm of Odds (LOD) Score: ○ Definition: The odds ratio, representing the likelihood of linkage versus no linkage, is expressed as a logarithm, known as the LOD score. ○ Interpretation: A LOD value of >3 indicates that linkage is 1000 times more likely than no linkage. This threshold helps in constructing linkage maps. ○ Effect of LOD Values: Higher LOD values can lead to fragmented linkage groups with fewer markers per group. Lower LOD values can result in fewer linkage groups with a larger number of markers per group. 3. Linkage Groups: ○ Definition: Linkage groups represent chromosomal segments or entire chromosomes. ○ Challenges: The distribution of polymorphic markers is not always even across chromosomes; they may be clustered or absent in certain regions. The frequency of recombination is not uniform along chromosomes. 4. Genetic Distance (MAP Distance): ○ Procedure: The map is built by adding loci sequentially, starting with the most informative pairs based on linkage information. ○ Distance Measurement: Genetic distance is measured in terms of recombination frequency. Recombination frequency is converted into centiMorgans (cM) using mapping functions. ○ Mapping Functions: Kosambi Mapping Function: Assumes that recombination events affect adjacent recombination events. Haldane Mapping Function: Assumes no interference between crossover events. Determination of Genetic (MAP) Distance 1. Mapping Procedure: ○ Process: Markers are added to the map based on their linkage information with previously placed markers. The position of each marker is determined using goodness-of-fit measures. 2. Mapping Functions: ○ Kosambi Mapping Function: Adjusts for the influence of adjacent recombination events. ○ Haldane Mapping Function: Assumes no crossover interference and provides a straightforward relationship between recombination frequency and genetic distance. Statistical Methods to Detect QTLs 1. Single Marker Analysis: ○ Definition: The simplest method, also known as single factor analysis of variance (SF-ANOVA). It uses linear regression, ANOVA, or t-tests to assess the association between a single marker and a trait. 2. Simple Interval Mapping: ○ Definition: Evaluates the association between a trait and a hypothetical QTL by analyzing multiple points between adjacent markers (target interval). 3. Composite Interval Mapping: ○ Definition: Combines interval mapping with multiple regression analysis to account for multiple QTLs and marker associations. 4. Multiple Interval Mapping (MIM): ○ Definition: An extension of interval mapping to accommodate multiple QTLs. MIM allows for QTL interactions, missing genotype data, and infers QTL positions between markers. Discussion The advent of Quantitative Trait Loci (QTL) mapping has significantly advanced our ability to identify and characterize genes controlling quantitative disease resistance in plants. This breakthrough, combined with molecular markers, has made it possible to better understand and manipulate complex forms of disease resistance. Current Status and Successes: QTL Mapping: With the development of genetic maps based on molecular markers, researchers have mapped QTLs in numerous economically important plants, including Arabidopsis, maize, rice, wheat, barley, and many others. This has greatly enhanced our ability to identify genetic factors associated with disease resistance. Marker-Assisted Selection: Despite some limitations in our understanding of the molecular nature of QTLs, marker-assisted selection (MAS) has achieved notable successes in crops like maize, tomato, and rice. For example, QTLs conferring resistance to downy mildew in maize have been successfully mapped and used to improve susceptible lines, such as transferring major QTLs into elite but susceptible inbred lines. Challenges and Limitations: Precision of QTL Detection: One significant challenge is that only QTLs with large effects and those close to marker loci tend to show statistically reliable associations. This can limit the ability to detect QTLs with smaller effects or those located further from known markers. Fine Mapping: To apply QTL information effectively in the field, fine mapping or high-resolution mapping of QTLs is crucial. This involves identifying precise locations of QTLs within the genome to understand their function better and improve their application in breeding. Future Directions: Technological Advancements: Recent developments in marker techniques, functional genomics, and theoretical models are expected to enhance the precision and utility of QTL mapping. High-throughput strategies and better integration of these technologies promise to improve our ability to detect QTLs and apply this information for crop improvement. Increased Power and Precision: The ongoing advancements in these areas are likely to provide greater power and accuracy in QTL detection, leading to more effective use of QTL information in breeding programs and crop enhancement efforts. Lecture 3 QTL mapping of stripe, leaf and stem rust resistance genes in a Kariega 3 Avocet S doubled haploid wheat population R. Prins B: Improved QTL characterisation & fine mapping Abstract Adult plant resistance to stripe (yellow) rust in the wheat cultivar Kariega has been attributed to major quantitative trait loci (QTL) on chromosomes 2B and 7D, along with several minor QTLs. To enhance the mapping population's size and marker coverage, we utilized a set of Diversity Array Technology (DArT) markers, extending the Kariega x Avocet S mapping population. This expansion facilitated a detailed analysis of the genetic basis for adult plant and seedling resistances to stripe, leaf, and stem rust in the two mapping population parents. Stripe rust reactions were assessed through field experiments (across three scoring dates) and greenhouse evaluations. As plants aged, the chromosome 2B QTL became more dominant compared to the Lr34/Yr18 complex on chromosome 7D. Over time, the two QTLs increasingly accounted for the variance in percentage leaf area infected. The cv. Kariega allele at the minor chromosome 4A QTL consistently influenced stripe rust severity and overall plant reaction at earlier scoring dates but diminished in significance as the disease advanced. Enhanced rust resistances were also identified using an improved greenhouse-based testing method. Introduction Summary Single-gene resistances against wheat stripe (yellow) rust have proven to be non-durable due to the pathogen’s ability to rapidly acquire new virulences and spread across regions. Adult plant resistance (APR), which becomes effective in mature plants and slows disease progression rather than preventing it, is considered a more sustainable strategy. APR tends to be non-race-specific, making it more durable. The South African wheat cultivar Kariega exhibits strong APR and has been used to investigate the genetic basis of resistance through QTL mapping. Recent advancements include the genomic sequencing of the chromosome 7D Lr34/Yr18 region, which has enabled the development of diagnostic markers. Kariega’s resistance is attributed to major QTLs on chromosomes 2BS and 4A, alongside minor QTLs. Histological studies have revealed differences in resistance mechanisms between the chromosome 7D and 2B QTLs. DNA marker technology, particularly Diversity Arrays Technology (DArT), has greatly enhanced marker density and resolution in wheat, aiding in the identification of resistance genes. The goal is to improve the Kariega x Avocet S linkage map for better understanding of resistance gene content. Materials and Methods Summary Plant Material and Greenhouse Phenotypic Evaluation: Mapping Population: The study extended the initial 150 progeny of the cv. Kariega × cv. Avocet S doubled haploid (DH) mapping population to 254 individuals. Growing Conditions: Plants were grown in plastic cones in a greenhouse with supplemental lighting and regular fertilization. They were inoculated with various rust pathotypes, including stripe rust pathotype 6E22A? and leaf rust pathotypes UVPt2, UVPt9, and UVPt13. Inoculation and Scoring: Stripe rust inoculated plants were kept at 10°C with high humidity for 48 hours, then maintained at 14–20°C. Leaf rust inoculated plants were dried for 1 hour, then held at 18–22°C. Infection responses were assessed after 16 days for stripe rust and 11 days for leaf rust using a standard 0–4 scale, converted to a more detailed 0–9 scale for QTL analysis. Field Evaluation: Experimental Design: The mapping population and parental lines were sown in a randomized block design with three replications. Stripe rust susceptible cv. Morocco was used as a spreader row. The stripe rust inoculum was managed with susceptible rows and inoculated at the Zadoks growth stage 30. Disease Assessment: Stripe rust responses were recorded on specific dates, and severity (leaf area infected) and reaction types were scored. An area under the disease progress curve (AUDPC) was calculated. Analysis of Disease Scores: Segregation Analysis: Tested for compatibility with mono- or digenic expectations using the chi-square statistic. Susceptibility was defined by specific infection types and severity ratings. Correlation: Compared greenhouse and field-derived scores using Pearson correlation. Linkage Maps: Map Curation: The existing linkage map was curated and updated with new DArT and SSR markers. AFLP markers were removed where alternative markers provided sufficient coverage. Map distances were calculated using the Kosambi map function. QTL Analysis: Tools and Methods: Single marker regression analyses and composite interval mapping (CIM) were performed using Windows QTL Cartographer and MapManager QTXb20. Significance was determined with 1,000 permutations for each trait. Results and Discussion Summary Greenhouse and Field Responses to Fungal Infection: Greenhouse Findings: ○ All rust pathotypes caused uniform infection in the flag leaves, confirming reliable infection conditions. ○ In the greenhouse, the range of infection types (IT) for both leaf and stripe rust varied from 0 to 4. ○ Parental Lines: cv. Kariega: Highly resistant to both rust types, showing infections mainly at the flag leaf base (Z reaction) with pathotypes UVPt2 and UVPt9. cv. Avocet S: Susceptible to stripe rust. ○ Leaf Rust Resistance: UVPt13 was virulent on cv. Avocet S, whereas UVPt2 and UVPt9 were avirulent. cv. Kariega was susceptible to both stem rust pathotypes (UVPgt57 and UVPgt59). Field Findings: ○ A severe stripe rust epidemic developed, confirmed as pathotype 6E22A?. ○ Mapping Population: Displayed a wide range of reaction types (RT) and leaf area infected (LAI) scores. There was variability in how greenhouse ITs correlated with field AUDPC scores, with an R² of 0.58. Some entries with low to intermediate greenhouse ITs showed high field resistance, while others with high ITs had high AUDPC values, suggesting high disease pressure may lead to severe field infection despite greenhouse resistance. The discrepancy might be due to the greenhouse method not detecting slow rusting resistance, which manifests with repeated infections over time. Correlation Analysis: ○ Averaging greenhouse ITs and field AUDPC values within classes improved correlation to R² = 0.92. ○ Other relationships also showed improved correlations when averaged: Greenhouse IT and field RT: R² = 0.39 (averaged R² = 0.90) Greenhouse IT and field LAI: R² = 0.58 (averaged R² = 0.88) Greenhouse RT and field RT: R² = 0.36 (averaged R² = 0.97) Greenhouse RT and field LAI: R² = 0.51 (averaged R² = 0.93) Greenhouse RT and AUDPC: R² = 0.56 (averaged R² = 0.96) ○ The data indicate that a single greenhouse infection cycle cannot fully replicate field scoring. Linkage Map: Genetic Map: The updated map includes 463 loci across 31 linkage groups, covering approximately 1,322 cM. The use of RECORD and the removal of double recombinations led to a more concise map. DArT Markers: Out of 296 DArT markers, all but ten were incorporated into the linkage groups. Chromosome 2D had no DArT markers, and the D genome was less covered overall. However, DArT markers were informative for the ends of several chromosome arms (e.g., 1AS, 1AL, 1D). Consistency: The location of most DArT markers aligned with previous studies, confirming their utility in mapping. Stripe Rust Resistance QTL: Major QTL: Major QTL for stripe rust resistance were confirmed on chromosomes 2B and 7D in cv. Kariega. ○ Lr34/Yr18 Complex: The csLV34 STS marker for Lr34 was mapped close to the QTL for stripe rust resistance, suggesting the presence of the Lr34/Yr18 complex in cv. Kariega. Lr34/Yr18/Pm18 is unique because it encodes an ABC transporter rather than a typical R gene, resulting in a slow rusting phenotype. ○ Histological Examination: The presence of QTL QYr.sgi-7D in line MP35 inhibited stripe rust sporulation and showed minimal hypersensitivity, aligning with previous findings that Lr34 does not exhibit typical hypersensitivity. ○ QTL on 2B: The cv. Kariega chromosome 2BS region's importance for stripe rust resistance was reaffirmed. The QTL interval QYr.sgi-2B.1, associated with markers Xbarc200 and wPt6278, explained up to 45% of the field RT variance. A smaller interval within QYr.sgi-2B.1 also contributed to all field stripe rust scores, GH_RT, and GH_IT. This QTL is large and may contain multiple resistance genes. Other QTL: ○ QYr.sgi-4A.1: This minor QTL was associated with approximately 28% of the LAI variance and 14% of RT and AUDPC variance. It was more effective in field conditions and showed limited impact in greenhouse tests. ○ Comparison to Other Studies: QYr.sgi-2B.1 coincides with similar QTL identified in other cultivars like cv. Opata85 and cv. Camp Rémy. The cv. Louise also showed a QTL in a similar region. ○ Minor QTL: Other minor QTL, such as those on chromosomes 1A, 7A, and 6B, were less consistently detected and contributed minimally to resistance in field conditions compared to the major QTL. Methodology: Improved greenhouse testing methods better reflected field conditions compared to earlier methods. The use of CIM (composite interval mapping) was more effective in detecting significant QTL compared to IM (interval mapping). The greenhouse method reliably detected major QTL but missed some minor ones, emphasizing the need for accurate simulation of field conditions. Conclusion: The updated genetic map and refined QTL analysis provide valuable insights into stripe rust resistance, highlighting the effectiveness of improved testing methods and confirming the significance of major QTL in cv. Kariega. Leaf Rust Resistance: Resistance Genes: ○ Three Genes Identified: Segregation patterns for resistance to leaf rust indicate three resistance genes for pathotypes UVPt2 and UVPt9, and two genes for UVPt13. ○ Gene Lr13: Likely provided resistance to UVPt2 and UVPt9. It is located between markers wPt5556 and wPt6278, the same markers that delimit QYr.sgi-2B.1a. However, the marker wPt3132 associated with Lr13 falls outside this region. ○ Gene Lr34: Effective against all three pathotypes (UVPt2, UVPt9, UVPt13), present in cv. Kariega. Chromosome 6B: Contributed a significant proportion of resistance variation for UVPt9 and UVPt13, potentially harboring Lr3bg, which is known to be effective against both pathotypes. Unidentified Major Genes: ○ UVPt2: Third major gene not associated with any specific marker, with minor effects observed on chromosomes 5B, 6B (cv. Kariega), and 6A (cv. Avocet S). ○ UVPt9: Third major gene not identified, with minor effects on chromosomes 6A (cv. Avocet S), 2B (cv. Avocet S), and 7B (cv. Kariega). Chromosome 6B Segmentation: The linkage group on chromosome 6B was split into two segments. One segment harbored a minor QTL associated with UVPt2, which was not the same as the region containing Lr3bg and resistances against UVPt9 and UVPt13. Chromosome 5D and Lr1: No evidence of Lr1 in cv. Kariega, as chromosome 5D was not implicated, potentially due to its low polymorphism. Stem Rust Resistance: Known Genes in cv. Avocet S: Expected resistances to UVPgt57 and UVPgt59 should be conferred by Sr5 and Sr26, respectively. Observed Deviations: ○ UVPgt59: Deviations from the expected monogenic 1:1 ratio, initially classifying seven lines as resistant, but they were susceptible to UVPgt57, suggesting the absence of Sr5 and Sr26. ○ UVPgt57: The reclassification of these lines as susceptible improved the fit with expected ratios. Chromosome Mapping: ○ Sr5: Mapped to chromosome 6DS, flanked by markers Xbarc183 and wPt3879. ○ Sr26: Mapped to chromosome 6AS, within a translocated region flanked by markers wPt7181 and Xpsp3152. Variance Explained: ○ Sr26: Explained approximately 49% of the variance observed for UVPgt59. ○ Sr5: Explained approximately 59% of the variance observed for UVPgt57. Conclusion: The analysis identifies key resistance genes for leaf rust and stem rust, with Lr13 and Lr34 being significant for leaf rust, and Sr5 and Sr26 for stem rust. Mapping has pinpointed these genes to specific chromosomes and regions, although some major genes remain unidentified or less clearly associated with markers. The study underscores the importance of precise genetic mapping and the complexities in assessing resistance across different pathotypes and environmental conditions. To Consider from Prins 2011: 1. Mapping Population Differences: ○ How does the mapping population used in this study differ from the one used in Ramburan 2004? How does this improve the quality of the linkage map? 2. Detailed Analysis: ○ Look closely at Figure 1 and Table 2 for insights. 3. Gene Validation: ○ Which gene was validated in this study (as shown in Table 2 and Figure 2)? How does this relate to the skepticism from the Ramburan study? What does this teach about QTL analysis? High-resolution mapping and new marker development for adult plant stripe rust resistance QTL in the wheat cultivar Kariega G. M. Agenbag B: Improved QTL characterisation & fine mapping C. Mendelising the QTL Abstract This study focuses on improving the selection process for durable stripe rust resistance in the wheat cultivar Kariega. Three main resistance genes are involved: QYr.sgi-2B.1, QYr.sgi-4A.1, and the pleiotropic gene Lr34/Yr18/Sr57. While these genes are already being used in breeding programs through marker-assisted selection, the large intervals of these QTLs make it difficult to select them effectively. To address this, the researchers developed expressed sequence tag (EST)-derived markers to increase the marker density in the QTL regions. Additionally, they converted existing markers into sequence-tagged site (STS) markers for easier and high-throughput screening. They created a high-resolution mapping population (1,020 F2 plants from a Kariega x Avocet S cross), which allowed them to narrow down the QTL intervals: QYr.sgi-2B.1 was reduced to a 6.1 cM region on chromosome 2B, between markers Xbarc55 and Xwmc344. QYr.sgi-4A.1 was narrowed to a 16.3 cM region on chromosome 4A, between markers Xbarc78, Xwmc313, and Xwmc219. A new marker, Xufs1-4A, was also developed to improve selection for this QTL. They also created BC4F2 families to study the individual and combined effects of QYr.sgi-2B.1, QYr.sgi-4A.1, and Lr34/Yr18/Sr57 in a stripe rust-susceptible wheat background (Avocet S). The study's efforts contributed to better selection tools for resistance breeding in South African wheat lines. Introduction: Stripe rust (yellow rust) is a significant global threat to wheat production and has spread to warmer regions where it was previously not a major problem. It was first detected in South Africa in 1996 and is now widespread in major wheat-producing areas. Four pathotypes of the disease have been identified, showing virulence against several known resistance genes. To date, 53 official stripe rust resistance genes (Yr) have been identified, with many more temporary genes reported. Adult plant resistance (APR) genes, which provide durable resistance, are key to combating stripe rust, as they rely on the additive effects of multiple genes. The wheat cultivar Kariega, released in South Africa in 1993, has shown resistance to all identified stripe rust pathotypes in the region. Previous studies identified three major quantitative trait loci (QTLs) for stripe rust resistance in Kariega: QYr.sgi-2B.1 on chromosome 2BS, QYr.sgi-4A.1 on chromosome 4AL, and Lr34/Yr18/Sr57, a pleiotropic resistance gene on chromosome 7DS. The study aimed to improve marker definition for the QYr.sgi-2B.1 and QYr.sgi-4A.1 QTLs to facilitate their incorporation into new wheat varieties. This was achieved by increasing marker density in these regions using SSR markers and developing expressed sequence tag (EST)-derived markers. These markers were further refined and converted to sequence-tagged site (STS) markers, enabling easier marker-assisted selection (MAS) in breeding programs. A large mapping population (Kariega x Avocet S) was used to narrow down the QTL regions and develop backcross lines carrying these resistance genes. The study also explored the origin of the Kariega QTLs in South African wheat breeding lines, improving our understanding of how these resistance traits can be used in developing new, rust-resistant wheat varieties Materials and Methods Plant Materials and Mapping Populations The parental wheat lines used in this study were Kariega and Avocet S. Kariega (pedigree: SST44//K4500.2/SapsuckerS) is a hard red spring wheat released in South Africa in 1993, resistant to stripe rust. Avocet S (pedigree: Thatcher-Ag. elongatum/3*Pinnacle//WW15/3/Egret) is a white-seeded, Australian spring wheat susceptible to stripe rust. A doubled haploid (DH) mapping population of 254 individuals, derived from the cross Kariega x Avocet S, was used for initial marker screening and QTL mapping. An additional high-resolution F2 mapping population of 1,020 plants from the same cross was developed for finer genetic mapping. Backcross (BC) lines were generated by backcrossing DH lines carrying different QTL combinations to Avocet S through four BC generations (BC4). These BC4 lines were genotyped using SSR markers without phenotyping until the BC4F2 generation. Field Evaluation of Stripe Rust Resistance Stripe rust resistance was evaluated in field trials by measuring disease severity, expressed as leaf area infected (LAI), and host reaction type (RT). RT was scored using categories resistant (R), moderately resistant (MR), moderately susceptible (MS), and susceptible (S), with intermediate categories (RMR, MRMS, MSS) added to capture the full range of plant responses. These ordinal categories were transformed for statistical analysis. Field trials of the Kariega x Avocet S DH population were conducted in 2000 and 2006, with randomized replications. Phenotypic data were collected over several time points in both years. A third field trial was conducted in 2009 for the F2 mapping population, planted at the PANNAR Research Station, Greytown, South Africa. Control plots of Kariega, Avocet S, and the susceptible cultivar Morocco were included. Rust inoculation was performed using pathotype 6E22A? of Puccinia striiformis f. sp. tritici, avirulent/virulent for multiple Yr genes. Stripe rust scores (LAI and RT) were recorded on the F2 plants and BC4F2 families in 2009 and 2011, respectively. Within-family variation in the BC4F2 families was also evaluated. Genomic DNA Preparation: DNA from the Kariega x Avocet S DH (doubled haploid) mapping population and BC (backcross) lines was extracted as described in a previous study (Ramburan et al. 2004). For the F2 mapping population, an adapted SDS protocol was used to extract DNA in 96-well plates, suitable for large sample sets (Pallotta et al. 2003). DNA quantification was performed using the Nanodrop Spectrophotometer ND-1000 (Thermo Scientific). SSR Markers: SSR markers were selected for the QTL regions QYr.sgi-2B.1 and QYr.sgi-4A.1 from consensus maps and screened between the parental lines. Polymorphic SSR markers were identified using fluorescently labeled primers and analyzed with the Applied Biosystems Genetic Analyzer. Data were processed using GeneMapper v4 software. Identification of EST-derived Nucleotide Polymorphisms: EST (Expressed Sequence Tag)-derived markers were used to locate each QTL to wheat chromosomal deletion bins. EST sequences mapped to specific deletion bins on chromosomes 2BS and 4AL were selected based on single locus priority and quality of mapping. Longer transcript assemblies (TAs) of selected ESTs were identified using the TIGR database, and exon–exon junctions within the sequences were located using the BLAT algorithm. Primer3Plus software was used to design primer pairs for the TA/EST sequences, with a focus on amplifying intronic regions due to their higher nucleotide variation. Sequence Variant Identification: PCR was performed using designed primers to amplify DNA from Kariega and Avocet S. Sequence variations such as SNPs and indels were identified through SSCP analysis using both polyacrylamide gel and capillary array systems. Electrophoresis was performed at 4°C, followed by silver nitrate staining for manual scoring. Capillary array electrophoresis was carried out on a 3130xl Genetic Analyzer using a fluorescently labeled universal forward primer for analysis. Additional Markers: Six EST-derived markers located in the telomeric region of chromosome 4A were included for analysis. An EST, BG909122, identified for differential transcription between stripe rust-resistant and susceptible wheat lines, was also tested for polymorphisms between Kariega and Avocet S. Marker Linkage Map Construction: The polymorphic SSR and EST-derived markers were mapped in the 254 lines of the Kariega x Avocet S DH population. Marker linkage map construction and QTL analysis were conducted as previously described by Prins et al. (2011). This methodological approach focuses on accurately identifying genomic regions linked to stripe rust resistance by combining advanced molecular techniques with genetic analysis. n the study of QTL mapping for stripe rust resistance genes, particularly QYr.sgi-2B.1 and QYr.sgi-4A.1, several steps were undertaken to develop markers suitable for marker-assisted selection (MAS) and conduct high-resolution mapping of these genomic regions. Development of Markers for MAS 1. Conversion of EST and DArT markers: Nucleotide polymorphisms identified via single-strand conformation polymorphism (SSCP) analysis and DArT markers from the QYr.sgi-2B.1 and QYr.sgi-4A.1 regions were converted to Sequence Tagged Site (STS) markers for MAS. The direct sequencing of PCR products in hexaploid wheat presented challenges due to the co-amplification of homoeologous sequences, necessitating cloning of PCR products before sequencing. 2. Sequencing and Cloning: PCR products amplified from genomic DNA of Kariega and Avocet S were purified and cloned using the pGEM-T Easy vector system. Five clones per EST target were sequenced to determine the parental alleles. SNPs were incorporated into primer sites for allele-specific amplification. DArT markers from the QYr.sgi-4A.1 interval were also analyzed, and primers were designed for specific markers. High-Resolution Mapping and Re-analyses 1. Marker Screening: Selected SSR and DArT-STS markers were screened in 1,020 plants from the F2 population to identify the presence of Lr34/Yr18/Sr57 using specific markers (e.g., cssfr6, GWM295, and csLV34). 2. Linkage Mapping and QTL Analysis: A linkage map was constructed using the maximum likelihood independence LOD algorithm in JoinMap v4.1. QTL positions were confirmed with composite interval mapping (CIM) in Windows QTL Cartographer, and flanking markers were used to identify recombinants for QYr.sgi-2B.1 and QYr.sgi-4A.1 intervals. 3. Re-Analysis of QTLs: Recombinant datasets were checked using JoinMap v4.1, and QTL locations were re-analyzed using Interval Mapping (IM) and Multiple-QTL mapping (MQM) in MapQTL v6. Marker co-factors were selected based on their association with stripe rust resistance phenotypes for MQM analysis. Permutation tests were conducted (10,000 iterations) to establish LOD critical values for both genome-wide and chromosome-specific significance. Results The results presented demonstrate significant progress in improving marker density for the stripe rust resistance QTLs QYr.sgi-2B.1 and QYr.sgi-4A.1 in wheat. Here's a breakdown of key findings: 1. Marker Development: ○ Primer Design: 60 EST/TAs for chromosome 2B (short arm) and 20 for chromosome 4A (long arm) were designed, along with six published markers. ○ Screening: SSCP and capillary array electrophoresis identified 9/57 (15.8%) and 4/30 (13.3%) polymorphic markers, respectively. Capillary array electrophoresis showed higher mapping accuracy (75%) compared to gel electrophoresis (44.4%). 2. Mapping of EST-Derived Markers: ○ Six EST markers mapped to chromosome 2B and three to 4A. ○ Specifically, TA1988_4550, TA52748_4565, and TA59174_4565 mapped to QYr.sgi-2B.1, while CV768787 and BG909122 mapped to QYr.sgi-4A.1. 3. SSR Markers: ○ Thirteen polymorphic SSR markers on 2B and four on 4A were identified. Nine mapped to QYr.sgi-2B.1, and one to QYr.sgi-4A.1. ○ The updated chromosome maps spanned 99.3 cM for 2B and 179.9 cM for 4A. 4. BLAST Analysis: ○ The EST sequences were BLAST searched against the NCBI database, revealing homologies with uncharacterized proteins, decarboxylases, disease resistance proteins, and transposons from species like foxtail millet, rice, barley, and Aegilops tauschii. 5. Marker Conversion for MAS: ○ Sequencing revealed SNPs, leading to the development of allele-specific markers. For example, CV768787 was prioritized and developed into the dominant marker Xufs1-4A. ○ For DArT markers, eight markers were targeted for primer design, and successful amplification was achieved for markers like wPt-4424, wPt-5434, wPt-7919, wPt-1155, and wPt-1961/wPt-9675, converting dominant DArT markers into co-dominant markers. 6. Stripe Rust Evaluation: ○ Stripe rust infection was assessed on two dates for the Kariega × Avocet S F2 population. Kariega was fully resistant, while Avocet S showed high susceptibility. The infection was uniform across the trial. 7. Mapping Markers: ○ Chromosome 2B: Markers spanned 88.9 cM on the full map and 133.1 cM on the recombinant map. The QYr.sgi-2B.1 interval was reduced to 6.1 cM between loci Xbarc55 and Xwmc344, explaining 10% (LAI) and 19.5% (RT) of the variance. ○ Chromosome 4A: Markers spanned 22.1 cM on the full map and 61.0 cM on the recombinant map. The QYr.sgi-4A.1 interval was reduced to 16.3 cM between Xbarc78 and Xwmc219, explaining 26.5% (LAI) and 9.7% (RT) of the variance. 8. Marker-Assisted Selection (MAS): ○ The maximum phenotypic variance explained by QYr.sgi-2B.1 and QYr.sgi-4A.1 for LAI and RT was relatively modest, with values of up to 7.0% and 17.3%, respectively. 9. Effect of QTLs: ○ QYr.sgi-2B.1: Demonstrated strong resistance with varying levels of stripe rust resistance (10R-50MR to 100S) depending on homozygous or heterozygous state. ○ QYr.sgi-4A.1: A slow-rusting gene that initially shows low LAI scores but eventually becomes susceptible (90MS to 100S). ○ Lr34/Yr18/Sr57: Showed intermediate resistance, with scores ranging from 50MRMS to 100S. Combinations of QTLs resulted in reduced disease severity due to additive effects. 10. Parentage Analysis: ○ The slow-rusting QTL QYr.sgi-4A.1 was found in lines SST44, T4, and Inia 66, with potential origins from Inia 66 or T4 through SST44. Discussion The discussion highlights the progress made in refining the genetic understanding and application of the stripe rust resistance genes in wheat, focusing on the Kariega genotype. Here's a breakdown of the key points: 1. Kariega’s Value: Kariega is a valuable wheat genotype due to its durable adult plant resistance to stripe rust, high bread-making quality, and high yield. 2. Key Resistance Genes: ○ Lr34/Yr18/Sr57: Known for its adult plant resistance (APR) to stripe rust. ○ QYr.sgi-2B.1 and QYr.sgi-4A.1: Major APR quantitative trait loci (QTL) reported in Kariega. This study has significantly improved the genetic resolution of these QTLs. 3. Marker Development: ○ SSR and EST-derived markers: These markers were used to fine-map the QTL intervals for QYr.sgi-2B.1 and QYr.sgi-4A.1. The study identified nine SSR and three EST-derived markers for QYr.sgi-2B.1 and one SSR and two EST-derived markers for QYr.sgi-4A.1. ○ STS Marker: Developed from the EST CV768787, useful for detecting QYr.sgi-4A.1 in related germplasm. 4. Genetic Resolution: ○ The genetic resolution of QYr.sgi-2B.1 has been greatly improved, reducing its interval to a 6.1 cM region. ○ QYr.sgi-4A.1 was also refined to a 16.3 cM interval. Differences in marker order between DH and F2 maps highlight challenges in mapping dominant markers and differences in marker density. 5. Marker Platforms: ○ Recent advancements in SNP marker systems, such as KASP SNP assays, are being explored for further refinement in Kariega QTL regions. 6. Phenotypic Variance: ○ The phenotypic variance explained by the QTLs was different in F2 versus DH populations. QYr.sgi-2B.1 showed a larger effect on resistance traits compared to QYr.sgi-4A.1. The latter’s effect varied based on environmental conditions and experimental setups. 7. Comparison with Other Studies: ○ QYr.sgi-2B.1: This QTL is associated with multiple previously reported APR QTLs on chromosome 2B. ○ QYr.sgi-4A.1: Shows environmental sensitivity and limited expression under high inoculum loads. It does not share homoeology with Lr34/Yr18/Sr57. 8. BC4F2 Families: ○ Studies involving BC4F2 families support the additive effects of combining partial resistance genes for improved field resistance. QYr.sgi-2B.1 and QYr.sgi-4A.1 together showed high levels of resistance, while individual genes or combinations with Lr34/Yr18/Sr57 alone did not perform as effectively. 9. Future Directions: ○ The study underscores the need for detailed examination of stripe rust resistance under various conditions and growth stages, facilitated by the development of these BC lines. Overall, the work improves our understanding of stripe rust resistance mechanisms in wheat and enhances marker-assisted selection for breeding purposes. Agenbag 2014: High-resolution Mapping and New Marker Development for Adult Plant Stripe Rust Resistance QTL in Wheat Kariega 1. Higher Resolution Map: ○ A higher resolution map provides a more detailed and precise location of QTLs on a chromosome. This was achieved by improving marker density and reducing the genetic interval of the QTLs. 2. Comparison of Figures: ○ Compare Figure 3b with Figure 1 in Prins 2011 to see how the resolution and marker placement for QYr.sgi-2B.1 and QYr.sgi-4A.1 have improved over time. 3. Mendelizing a QTL/Gene: ○ Mendelizing a QTL means identifying the specific gene responsible for the trait by analyzing its inheritance patterns and confirming its role. 4. Phenotypic Responses: ○ Assess how the plant's resistance to stripe rust changes when QYr.sgi-2B.1, QYr.sgi-4A.1, and Lr34/Yr18/Sr57 are not all present together. 5. Importance for Breeding: ○ Understanding these details helps in breeding programs to develop wheat varieties with better and more durable resistance to stripe rust. Long-read genome sequencing of bread wheat facilitates disease resistance gene cloning Naveenkumar Athiyannan D: Gene cloning & identification Researchers have developed a detailed 14.7-gigabase chromosome-scale genome assembly for the South African bread wheat cultivar Kariega using advanced techniques like long-read sequencing, optical mapping, and chromosome conformation capture. This new assembly is significantly more contiguous than previous ones. The Kariega wheat is resistant to stripe rust disease due to the race-specific resistance gene Yr27, which encodes an immune receptor. Yr27 is nearly identical (97% sequence identity) to the leaf rust resistance gene Lr13. This study highlights the potential of chromosome-scale assemblies for gene cloning and suggests that similar alleles of single-copy genes can provide resistance to different pathogens, paving the way for engineering Yr27 variants with broader pathogen recognition capabilities. Circular consensus sequencing (CCS) is a new DNA sequencing technology that overcomes the trade-off between read length and accuracy, leading to better genome assemblies. However, sequencing and gene cloning in complex genomes like polyploid bread wheat (around 16 gigabases) remain challenging. Wheat cultivars exhibit significant structural rearrangements and gene differences, making it crucial to deve

Advanced Plant Molecular Genetics PDF

Document Details

Tags

Related

Summary

Full Transcript

Upgrade to continue