Analysis of Genes for Stigma Coloration in Rice - IRRI books
Analysis of Genes for Stigma Coloration in Rice - IRRI books Analysis of Genes for Stigma Coloration in Rice - IRRI books
Inheritance of resistance The F 1 seedlings in all crosses with TN1 were resistant, indicating that resistance was dominant in all six varieties. All of the F 2 and BC 1 populations segregated in the ratio of 3 resistant:1 susceptible and 1 resistant:1 susceptible, respectively. These results indicate that resistance to WBPH in each of the six varieties is governed by one dominant gene. Allelic relationships The allelic relationships of the resistant genes in the six tested varieties to Wbph-1, Wbph-2, Wbph-3, and Wbph-5 were identified. Crosses with N22. The F 1 s from six crosses with N22 were resistant to WBPH (Table 2). The F 2 and testcross populations from the cross with HA79317-7 did not segregate for susceptibility, indicating that the single dominant gene in this variety is allelic to Wbph-1. The F 2 and testcross populations from other crosses all segregated in the ratio of 15 resistant:1 susceptible and 3 resistant:1 susceptible, respectively, indicating that the single dominant gene for resistance in Guiyigu, Biangu, Daqigu, Dahuagu, and Dianri 336-3 is nonallelic to and independent of Wbph-1. Crosses with IR30659-2-165. The F 1 s from five crosses with IR30659-2-165 were resistant (Table 3); the F 2 and testcross populations from the cross with Dianri 336-3 did not segregate for susceptibility, showing that the single dominant gene in this variety is allelic to Wbph-2; the F 2 and testcross populations from other crosses all segregated in the ratio of 15 resistant:l susceptible and 3 resistant:l susceptible, respectively, showing that the single dominant gene for resistance in Guiyigu, Biangu, Daqigu, and Dahuagu is nonallelic to and independent of Wbph-2. Table 3. Reaction to WBPH in F 1 , F 2 , and testcross populations of crosses between 6 resistant varieties and lR30659-2-165. F 1 F 2 seedlings (no.) c 2 b Testcross (F 1 /TN1) c 2 b Cross reaction a (15:1) (3:1) Resistant Susceptible Resistant Susceptible lR30659-2-165/ Resistant 331 29 Guiyigu lR30659-2-165/ Resistant 342 33 Biangu lR30659-2-165/ Resistant 368 18 Daqigu lR30659-2-165/ Resistant 304 12 Dahuagu lR30659-2-165/ Resistant 275 10 HA79317-7 lR30659-2-165/ Resistant 325 0 Dianri 336-3 1.71 3.74 1.29 2.84 3.20 96 83 75 73 59 24 17 14 37 10 1.34 3.00 3.60 3.33 3.52 – – 102 0 a 24–30 seedlings for each cross. b c 2 = 3.84, P = 0.05. Genetic analysis of resistance to whitebacked planthopper in rice 265
Crosses with ADR52 and N’Diang Marie. The F 1 from four crosses with ADR52 and N'Diang Marie were resistant (Table 4). The F 2 and testcross populations from all of the crosses segregated in the ratio of 15 resistant:1 susceptible and 3 resistant:l susceptible, respectively, indicating that a single dominant gene for resistance in Guiyigu, Biangu, Daqigu, and Dahuagu is nonallelic to and independent of Wbph-3 and Wbph-5. Crosses among Guiyigu, Biangu, Daqigu, and Dahuagu. To determine the allelic relationship of the resistance gene in Guiyigu, Biangu, Daqigu, and Dahuagu, the performances of the F 1 , F 2 , and testcross populations in six crosses were investigated (Table 5). Table 4. Reaction to WBPH in F 1 , F 2 , and testcross populations of crosses between 4 resistant varieties and ADR52 and N’Diang Marie. F 1 F 2 seedlings (no.) c 2 b Testcross (F 1 /TN1) c 2 b Cross reaction a (15:1) (3:1) Resistant Susceptible Resistant Susceptible 23 ADR52/Guiyigu Resistant 266 11 2.08 98 a 24–30 seedlings for each cross. b c 2 = 3.84, P = 0.05; c 2 = 6.63, P = 0.01 ADR52/Biangu ADR52/Daqigu ADR52/Dahuagu N’Diang Marie/ Guiyigu N’Diang Marie/ Biangu N’Diang Marie/ Resistant Resistant Resistant Resistant Resistant Resistant 290 352 294 280 436 293 17 24 26 19 28 21 0.16 0.00 1.61 0.00 0.01 0.04 74 85 74 96 76 54 16 18 17 19 16 14 Daqigu N’Diang Marie/ Resistant 41 0 28 0.00 112 30 Dahuagu 2.01 2.1 3 2.72 1.62 3.97 2.45 0.49 0.94 Table 5. Reaction to WBPH in F 1 , F 2 , and testcross populations of crosses among 4 resistant varieties. Cross F 1 reaction a F 2 seedlings (no.) Testcross (F 1 /TN1) Resistant Susceptible Resistant Susceptible Guiyigu/Biangu Guiyigu/Daqigu Guiyigu/Dahuagu Biangu/Daqigu Biangu/Dahuagu Daqigu/Dahuagu Resistant Resistant Resistant Resistant Resistant Resistant 405 311 412 290 320 289 2 1 3 0 1 1 78 79 107 101 69 84 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 24–30 seedlings for each cross. 266 Min et al
- Page 254 and 255: Photoperiod-conditioned male steril
- Page 256 and 257: Table 1. Daily changes in pollen fe
- Page 258 and 259: Plants (%) 1. Distribution of NK58s
- Page 260 and 261: generative nucleus degenerates, wit
- Page 262 and 263: Table 6. Segregation for spikelet f
- Page 264 and 265: Thermosensitive genetic male steril
- Page 266 and 267: Table 3. Seed set percentage and fl
- Page 268 and 269: Table 8. Fertility of H89-1 grown u
- Page 270 and 271: Discussion Session 4: Genetics of m
- Page 272: Q— Virmani: IRRI is thankful to J
- Page 276 and 277: Transfer of blast and bacterial bli
- Page 278 and 279: inocula in the International Rice B
- Page 280 and 281: 1. Blast lesions on a) Oryza sativa
- Page 282 and 283: Table 4. Reaction of WHD IS 78-1 BC
- Page 284 and 285: minuta Acc. 101141 has been shown t
- Page 286 and 287: Inheritance of resistance to rice t
- Page 288 and 289: 203 is recessive. The F 2 populatio
- Page 290 and 291: esults of Pankhari 203/TN1 showed a
- Page 292 and 293: RTSV can spread as an independent v
- Page 294 and 295: Genetics of rice resistance to brow
- Page 296 and 297: Table 1. Reaction to BPH of F 1 s a
- Page 298 and 299: esistant:8 segregating:1 susceptibl
- Page 300: Data on the relative contribution o
- Page 303: 88 (using ADR52 and N’Diang Marie
- Page 308: Discussion Session 5: Genetics of d
- Page 312 and 313: Application of somaclonal variation
- Page 314 and 315: Unfavorable conditions induced some
- Page 316 and 317: tion. Root and leaf growth was prog
- Page 318: in vitro selection at the haploid l
- Page 321 and 322: information on the inheritance of c
- Page 323 and 324: espectively). Average frequencies o
- Page 325 and 326: 3. (Vr, Wr) graph for plant regener
- Page 327 and 328: Table 6. Analysis of variance of 6
- Page 330 and 331: Genetic analysis for salt tolerance
- Page 332 and 333: Table 1. Regenerants from IR20 and
- Page 334 and 335: Table 5. Fertile R 1 progeny lines
- Page 336 and 337: Somaclonal male sterile mutants and
- Page 338 and 339: sterile plants in the R 1 and R 2 w
- Page 340 and 341: Table 2. Segregation patterns for s
- Page 342 and 343: When Zhen shan 97 B and Er Jiu-ai B
- Page 344: Oono K (1985) Putative homozygous m
- Page 347 and 348: and exhibiting high regenerative ca
- Page 349 and 350: Table 3. Detection of ß-glucuronid
- Page 351 and 352: Lee L, Schroll R E, Grimes H D, Hod
- Page 353 and 354: advantageous than wing somatic cell
Crosses with ADR52 and N’Diang Marie. The F 1 from four crosses with ADR52 and<br />
N'Diang Marie were resistant (Table 4). The F 2 and testcross populations from all <strong>of</strong><br />
the crosses segregated <strong>in</strong> the ratio <strong>of</strong> 15 resistant:1 susceptible and 3 resistant:l<br />
susceptible, respectively, <strong>in</strong>dicat<strong>in</strong>g that a s<strong>in</strong>gle dom<strong>in</strong>ant gene <strong>for</strong> resistance <strong>in</strong><br />
Guiyigu, Biangu, Daqigu, and Dahuagu is nonallelic to and <strong>in</strong>dependent <strong>of</strong> Wbph-3 and<br />
Wbph-5.<br />
Crosses among Guiyigu, Biangu, Daqigu, and Dahuagu. To determ<strong>in</strong>e the allelic<br />
relationship <strong>of</strong> the resistance gene <strong>in</strong> Guiyigu, Biangu, Daqigu, and Dahuagu, the<br />
per<strong>for</strong>mances <strong>of</strong> the F 1 , F 2 , and testcross populations <strong>in</strong> six crosses were <strong>in</strong>vestigated<br />
(Table 5).<br />
Table 4. Reaction to WBPH <strong>in</strong> F 1 , F 2 , and testcross populations <strong>of</strong> crosses between 4<br />
resistant varieties and ADR52 and N’Diang Marie.<br />
F 1 F 2 seedl<strong>in</strong>gs (no.) c 2 b<br />
Testcross (F 1 /TN1) c 2 b<br />
Cross reaction a (15:1) (3:1)<br />
Resistant Susceptible Resistant Susceptible<br />
23<br />
ADR52/Guiyigu Resistant 266 11 2.08 98<br />
a 24–30 seedl<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>for</strong> each cross.<br />
b c<br />
2 = 3.84, P = 0.05; c<br />
2 = 6.63, P = 0.01<br />
ADR52/Biangu<br />
ADR52/Daqigu<br />
ADR52/Dahuagu<br />
N’Diang Marie/<br />
Guiyigu<br />
N’Diang Marie/<br />
Biangu<br />
N’Diang Marie/<br />
Resistant<br />
Resistant<br />
Resistant<br />
Resistant<br />
Resistant<br />
Resistant<br />
290<br />
352<br />
294<br />
280<br />
436<br />
293<br />
17<br />
24<br />
26<br />
19<br />
28<br />
21<br />
0.16<br />
0.00<br />
1.61<br />
0.00<br />
0.01<br />
0.04<br />
74<br />
85<br />
74<br />
96<br />
76<br />
54<br />
16<br />
18<br />
17<br />
19<br />
16<br />
14<br />
Daqigu<br />
N’Diang Marie/ Resistant 41 0 28 0.00 112 30<br />
Dahuagu<br />
2.01<br />
2.1 3<br />
2.72<br />
1.62<br />
3.97<br />
2.45<br />
0.49<br />
0.94<br />
Table 5. Reaction to WBPH <strong>in</strong> F 1 , F 2 , and testcross populations <strong>of</strong> crosses among 4 resistant<br />
varieties.<br />
Cross<br />
F 1 reaction a<br />
F 2 seedl<strong>in</strong>gs (no.)<br />
Testcross (F 1 /TN1)<br />
Resistant Susceptible Resistant Susceptible<br />
Guiyigu/Biangu<br />
Guiyigu/Daqigu<br />
Guiyigu/Dahuagu<br />
Biangu/Daqigu<br />
Biangu/Dahuagu<br />
Daqigu/Dahuagu<br />
Resistant<br />
Resistant<br />
Resistant<br />
Resistant<br />
Resistant<br />
Resistant<br />
405<br />
311<br />
412<br />
290<br />
320<br />
289<br />
2<br />
1<br />
3<br />
0<br />
1<br />
1<br />
78<br />
79<br />
107<br />
101<br />
69<br />
84<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
a 24–30 seedl<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>for</strong> each cross.<br />
266 M<strong>in</strong> et al
Change language