Breeding for virus resistance in cereals · 2018. 8. 17. · Wheat - Triticum Barley yellow dwarf virus, Wheat dwarf virus, Soil-borne wheat mosaic virus, Wheat spindle streak mosaic

Breeding for virus resistance

www.jki.bund.de

Breeding for virus resistancein cereals

Frank Ordon

Worldwide acreage of cereals 2009

Institute for Resistance Research and Stress Tolerance

http://faostat.fao.org

Wheat - Triticum Barley yellow dwarf virus, Wheat dwarf virus, Soil-borne wheat mosaic virus,

Wheat spindle streak mosaic virus, Soil-borne cereal mosaic virus, Wheat yellow mosaic virus,

Aubian wheat mosaic virus, Barley yellow striate mosaic virus, Indian peanut clump virus,

Wheat rosette stunt virus, Wheat American striate virus

Barley - Hordeum Barley yellow dwarf virus, Wheat dwarf virus, Barley mild mosaic virus,

Barley yellow mosaic virus, Barley stripe mosaic virus, Northern cereal mosaic virus,

Barley yellow streak mosaic virus, Arabis mosaic virus, Tobacco rattle virus

Rye - Secale Barley yellow dwarf virus, Wheat dwarf virus, Soil-borne cereal mosaic virus,

Wheat spindle streak mosaic

Triticale - Triticosecale Barley yellow dwarf virus, Wheat dwarf virus, Soil-borne cereal mosaic virus,

Important viruses of Poaceae (Gramineae)


Wheat spindle streak mosaic virus

Oat - Avena Barley yellow dwarf virus, Oat sterile dwarf virus, Oat golden stripe virus,

Oat chlorotic stunt virus, Oat mosaic virus, Wheat dwarf virus

Corn - Zea Maize dwarf mosaic virus, Johnsongrass mosaic virus, Sugarcane mosaic virus,

Maize rough dwarf virus, Maize chlorotic mottle virus, Maize chlorotic dwarf virus,

Maize bushy stunt virus, Cereal chlorotic mottle virus, Barley yellow dwarf virus,

Sorghum chlorotic spot virus, High Plains virus, Wheat streak mosaic virus

Rice - Oryza Rice tungro viruses, Rice dwarf virus, Rice gall dwarf virus, Rice grassy stunt virus,

Rice hoja blanca virus, Rice necrosis mosaic virus, Rice ragged stunt virus,

Rice stripe necrosis virus, Rice yellow mottle virus, Barley yellow dwarf virus

Sorghum / Millet -

Sorghum/Pennisetum

Maize dwarf mosaic virus, Sorghum yellow banding virus, Sorghum chlorotic spot virus

W. Huth

BaYMV/BaMMV- YieldCultivar Reaction t/ha relative

Asorbia (6-rowed) resistant 5.33 100Corona (6-rowed) susceptible 3.53 65

Romanze (2-rowed)resistant 4.20 100Marinka (2-rowed) susceptible 2.38 57

Barley yellow mosaic virus disease


BaMMV, BAMMV-SIL, BaMMV-Teik, BaYMV, BaYMV-2

10 m2 plots, 3 replications; LSD (5%) = 0.25 t/ha and 0.35 t/ha; yield in ATM

Yuka (6-rowed) resistant 7.66 100Grete (6-rowed) susceptible 4.10 54

Duet (2-rowed) resistant 6.30 100Angora (2-rowed) suceptible 4.24 67

Economic loss caused by BaMMV/BaYMV

Acreage (2010): 1303000 ha

Yield: 6.66 t = 8677980 t

Barley price: 150 € per t

Economic value: 1301697000


50% of barley acreage potentially infested (Huth 1988): 651500 ha

Moderate yield loss of 25%: 1074975 t

Economic loss: 161246250 €

No. Cultivars Yield

Year resistant susceptible resistant susceptible

1986 6 37 4.3* 5.6

1995 24 41 6.5 6.3

2005 52** 23 6.7 6.1

Genetic base of BaMMV/BaYMV-resistance


2005 52** 23 6.7 6.1

2011 55 9 6.9 6.4

*1=minimum, 9=maximum, List of registered cultivars, Federal Seedboard, different years

**48: rym4 derived from Ragusa4: rym5 Tokyo (1996): [(Fallon x 13060) x 87-5381 B] x Swift]

Resistant Ym. No.1 x Igri

(Hemker, pers. Comm.)

BaMMV BaYMV BaYMV-2 No.Genotypes

Hordeum vulgare ssp. vulgare- - - 201- - + 86+ - - 53- + + 43

Hordeum vulgare ssp. spontaneum- + + 3- - - 2

- = negative ELISA (resistant), + = positive ELISA ( susceptible)

Screening for resistance and genetic analysis


- = negative ELISA (resistant), + = positive ELISA ( susceptible)Ordon et al. 1993, Habekuss et al. 2000

Götz & Friedt 1993, Ordon & Friedt 1993

F2 Infect.-

Cross Segregation χχχχ2** rate (%)

r : s 7r:9s

H. vulgare ssp vulgare

Chikurin Ibaraki 1 x Ogra 49 : 69 0.233 98

Russia 57 x Diana 68 : 81 0.214 95

Bulgarian 347 x Diana 61 : 89 0.574 95

Bulgarian 347 x Russia 57 42 : 73 2.442 100

Taihoku A x Chikurin Ibaraki 1 50 : 68 0.091 100

Bulgarian 347 x Chikurin Ibaraki 53 : 63 0.0114 100

H. vulgare

Cultivars

Landraces

H. vulgare ssp.

spontaneum

Identification of geneticvariation


Rym15/Rym15(s):2Rym15/rym15(s):rym15/rym15(r)

rym15/rym15 (r) x Rym15/rym15 (s)

rym15/Rym15 (s) Sellfing

P

F1

F2

Backcrossing procedures

F1

F2

F3

F4

F5

P1 x P2


H. bulbosum

Hordeum sp.

n=30

Utilization of geneticvariation

x Rym15/Rym15


Resistance test

rym15/Rym15 (s)Selbstung

F´1 BC1

F´2

Resistance Test

x Rym15/Rym15

F5

F6

F7

F8

F9

F10

Pedigree SelectionUse of genetic variation

Heritability

h2=Vg/Vp

Success of selection

R=h2xSD

- No reliable selection on a single plant level (A1, F2)

Genotype

Phenotype

Environment

Reliable selection on the single plant level (A1, F2) in the lab independently from the incidence of viruses in the field and symptom development in early developmental stages



h =Vg/Vp

The better the inference fromthe phenotype to the

genotype the higher thesuccess of selection

Vp=Vg+VE+VgE Viruses do not incide each year-

Symptom development is often influenced by environmental factors

-

level (A1, F2)

Reliable selection for resistance on the phenotypic level can not be carried out

each year

Chikurin Ibaraki 1

rym7

rym4

Rym14HB

rym15 rym3

rym11rym1

rym13rym9 rym8

Mapped resistance genes against BaMMV/BaYMV

E33M56_2500.0

E36M59_42015.8

markername

distancecM


3H 1H(5)

100 cM

6H 5H(7)7H(1) 2H 4H

rym4rym5rym6 rym10

mod. Graner et al. 2000

Rym16HB

rym8

s r r s r

E36M59_42015.8

WMS 0616.5

E43M59_28521.4

E53M40_15427.2

OP-C13_900 E51M40_120

GBM 101527.8

E53M36_10528.2rym1329.1

HVM 6733.0

OP-E14_105033.7

E56M39_20036.7

r s r s s

r s s r s

Humbroich, K., H. Jaiser, A. Schiemann, P. Devaux, A. Jacobi, L. Cselenyi, A. Habekuss, W. Friedt, F. Ordon, 2010. Plant Breeding 129, 346-348.

Ordon, F. 2009: Barley Genetics Newsletter 39, 58-69.

WSSMV/SBCMV

SBCMV

WSSMVAWMV

SBBMV?

WSMV

Wheat – SBCMV-Resistance

D. Hariri

Cla

ire

Mo

uli

n

Azte

k

Tre

mie

Sa

va

nn

ah

Od

es

sk

aja

51

To

nic

Ca

de

nza

154 bp

152 bpXcfd1830

Savannah x Claire


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

r s

Resistance

Fre

qu

en

z

Savanah x Claire

69r : 57s (Chi2 1r:1s = 1,14)

152 bp

3 alleles identified in about 100genotypes tested.154bp diagnosticfor „Cadenza-derived resistance“,152 bp for „Tremie/Claire-derivedresistance“. All suceptiblegenotypes displayed a null allele.

3 alleles identified in about 100genotypes tested.154bp diagnosticfor „Cadenza-derived resistance“,152 bp for „Tremie/Claire-derivedresistance“. All suceptiblegenotypes displayed a null allele.

Perovic, D., J. Förster, P. Devaux, D. Hariri, M. Guilleroux, K. Kanyuka, R. Lyons, J. Weyen, D. Feuerhelm, U. Kastirr, P. Sourdille, M. Röder, F. Ordon, 2009. Molecular Breeding 23, 641-653.

Xcfd1830Xgwm8051Xgwm9314

Xgpw34315

Xcfd1035

AFLP139

SbmClaire48XSSR149Xwmc76551

Xbbrc14459

Xwmc44363

Xgwm27267

Xcfe30168

Xgpw2323

71

Chromosome 5DL

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

Yield t/ha

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9Score

Yield

Lodging

Winterkilling

R. secalis

BaYMV/BaYMV-2

rym15 rym15/rym15 (r) x Rym15/rym15 (s)

rym15/Rym15 (s) Selfing

P

F1

rym15/rym15 (r) x Rym15/Rym15 (s)P

rym15/Rym15 (s)F1 x Rym15/Rym15

0

1

2

Conventional backcrossing Marker assisted backcrossing

Marker assisted backcrossing


Fra

nka

Asorb

ia

Anson

Bulga

rian 347

Muju co

vere

d 2

Taihok

u A

Zairai Rok

kaku

Chikurin Ibara

ki 1

Ou 1

0

1.0

2.0

1

2

6H 5H(7)6H 5H(7)6H 5H(7)6H 5H(7)

Ordon & Friedt, Genet. Res. Crop Evol. 41: 43-46


Resistance test

x Rym15/Rym15

rym15/Rym15 (s) Selbfing

x Rym15/Rym15

F2

F´1 BC1

F´2

Rym15/Rym15 (s) rym15/Rym15 (s)

x Rym15/Rym15


x Rym15/Rym15


x Rym15/Rym15

2

3

4

5

F´1 BC1

F´´1 BC2

F´´´1 BC3


Resistance test

Ordon, F., B. Pellio, K. Werner, A. Schiemann, W. Friedt, A. Graner, 2003. J. Plant Diseases and Protection 110, 287-295.

Donor (R)

x

F

Recurrent Parent (S)

Recurrent Parent

Determination of the genomicportion of recurrent parent

Marker assisted backcrossing

9k iS

ele

ct

Chip


x

BC2

Recurrent parent

F1

R S

x

BC1

Recurrent Parent

75% 81% 64%63% 94% 72% Genomic portion

AFLP‘s

9k iS

ele

ct

Chip

BaYMV BaYMV-2 BaMMV BaMMV-SIL BaMMV-EIK

rym4 r s r r r

rym5 r r r s s

rym9 s s r r r

rym11 r r r r r

Pyramiding of BaMMV/BaYMV resistance genes


rym4 rym5 rym9 rym11

rym4 x rym9 rym4 x rym11 rym5 x rym11rym9 x rym11

rym4 x rym9 x rym11 rym5 x rym9 x rym11

rym5 x rym9

rym4

rym4 rym4

rym4 rym4 rym4

rym4

rym4

RYM4 RYM4rym9 rym9

RYM9

RYM9

RYM9

RYM9

RYM9

RYM9 RYM9RYM9

RYM11

RYM4 rym9

RYM11

RYM4

RYM11

rym4

RYM11

RYM11 RYM11

RYM11

RYM11

RYM11

RYM11

RYM11

RYM11

RYM11

RYM9 rym9

xrym4 rym4RYM11

RYM11 RYM11RYM9

RYM9

RYM9RYM4 RYM4

rym9

P

rym4

rym4

RYM9

RYM9

RYM4

RYM4

rym9

rym9

xrym4

rym4

RYM11

RYM11

RYM4

RYM4 rym11

rym11

rym11

F1

F1´ XXXX

XXXX XXXX

Pyramiding of BaMMV/BaYMV resistance genes

rym5 x rym9 x rym11

27 of 187 DHs, Chi2 = 2.186

rym4 x rym9 x rym11

20 of 107 DHs, Chi2 = 0.072

4r

4r

9r

9r

11r

11r

5r

5r

9r

9r

11r

11r

4r 119r 11r4r 9 4/5 9r 11r 11r5r 9 5r 9r 11


DH Line

Production

Marker Selection

rym4, rym9 and

rym11 fixed

rym4 and

rym9 fixed

rym4 and

rym11 fixed

rym4rym4 rym4rym9 rym9 RYM

9

rym1

1

RYM

11

rym4 rym4 rym4

rym4

rym4rym9 rym9rym1

1

rym1

1

rym1

1

RYM

11

RYM

11

RYM

11

RYM

9

RYM

9

RYM

9

A1

rym4 rym4

rym4 rym4

rym4

RYM4

rym4 rym4

rym4

rym4rym4

RYM4

RYM4

RYM4

RYM4 RYM4

RYM4 RYM4 RYM4

RYM4

rym4

RYM4

RYM4

RYM4 RYM4

RYM4

rym9 rym9

rym9 rym9

rym9rym9

RYM9

RYM9

RYM9 RYM9

RYM9

RYM9 RYM9

RYM9

RYM9RYM9

RYM9

RYM9

RYM9 RYM9

RYM9

RYM9

RYM9

RYM9

RYM9

RYM9

RYM9

rym11

rym11 rym11 rym11 rym11

rym11rym11

rym11

rym11rym11

RYM11

RYM11

RYM11

RYM11

RYM11 RYM11

RYM11

RYM11RYM11

RYM11

RYM11

RYM11

RYM11

RYM11

RYM11 RYM11 RYM11RYM4

HVM 67 (rym9)Bmac 29 (rym4) HVM 03 (rym11)

Werner K, W Friedt, F Ordon, 2005. Mol. Breeding 16: 45-55

rym4 x rym9

31 of 107 DHs

Chi2 =7.489

rym4 x rym11

17 of 107 DHs

Chi2 =0.086

rym9 x rym11

42 of 294 DHs

Chi2 =0.033

rym5 x rym11

21 of 187 DHs

Chi2 =1.642

rym5 x rym9

31 of 187 DHs

Chi2 =0.629

9r114r 4r 11r9 9r 11r 11r4/5 5r 9 5r 9r 11

50Infection days - autumn

50Attack - spring (%)

Relation between BYDV-attack of winter barley in spring and temperature in autumn

LuteovirusBYDV-PAVBYDV-MAV

PolerovirusCYDV-RPV

Rhopalosiphum padi & Macrosiphum avenae

Macrosiphum avenae

Rhopalosiphum padi

+ssRNA-Virus,isometric particles(25-30 nm), phloem limitedyield losses 20-40%Dr. A. Habekuss

Barley yellow dwarf virus (BYDV)


Year

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Infection daysAttack

Infection days = Number of days with a diurnal mean temperature >= 10°C between 1st of

October and 31st of DecemberHabekuß, A., C. Riedel, E. Schliephake, F. Ordon, 2009. J. of Cultivated plants 61, 87-91.

Chromosome 3H

AJ04H75013,5

AJ14H69011,1

E40M48_1769,0

HVLTPPB25,1

E35M49_725,1

X20H1750*1,3HvM009*6,8AG12H1200*10,2Bmac067*2,6YlpPCRM*10,9E45M50_7*8,6cMWG680*11,3I10H630*15,5HvM60*

ScM

Ryd2 (Vixen)

σσσσ²part P 31.8%

Identification von QTL for BYDV-tolerance

Yield/plant [%]

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Num

ber

of

lines

Yield/plant [%]

0

5

10

15

20

Num

ber

of

lines

Yield/plant '97 [%]

Yield/plant '98 [%]

Yield/plant '99 [%]

Field trial, Braunschweig Pot experiment, Rauischholzhausen

Yield/plant '97 [%]

Yield/plant '98 [%]

Yield/plant '99 [%]

Scheurer, K., W. Huth, R. Waugh, W. Friedt, F. Ordon, 2001. Theor. Appl. Genet. 103:1074-1083


Chromosome 2H

E34M49_2908,5AI1H4507,1E36M47_116,1E35M50_37,6E41M48_1688,6E39M49_310,2E32M47_3207,1HvM0239,8HVBKASI9,7W11H62020,9E39M49_610,2E39M51_95,6V12E35M50_522,7E43M50_427,7AJ06H350*34,6HvM0546E43M50_14,1W20H48015,3HVCSG8,3E36M47_11

L

cM

HvM60*

L

QTL 2HL (Post)

σσσσ²part P 19.6%

58.9

58.2

56.656.0

54.654.1

60.5

61.5

63.7

64.7

65.5

52.9

Marker Recombinant inbred linesMap distances (cM)

RIL

K4-5

RIL

K4-2

0

RIL

K4-1

4

RIL

K4-2

8

RIL

K4-7

3

RIL

K4-1

01

RIL

K4-7

5

RIL

K4-8

5

RIL

K4-6

7

RIL

K4-5

6

RIL

K4-9

7

RIL

K4-1

1

RIL

K4-3

1

ABG458 ?*

E35M55-216

E40M32-209

E33M58-124

E33M61-441

E37M33-574

HVM22#

E45M55-262

E41M32-522

E42M48-303

E33M61-681

E40M38-112

E38M54-271

BYD score

24 June 2.7 2.3 2.7 2.0 2.3 2.0 1.3 2.3 2.3 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0

17 July 3.0 3.0 2.3 2.3 2.3 1.3 1.7 1.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

susceptible resistant

58.9

58.2

56.656.0

54.654.1

60.5

61.5

63.7

64.7

65.5

52.9


RIL

K4-5

RIL

K4-2

0

RIL

K4-1

4

RIL

K4-2

8

RIL

K4-7

3

RIL

K4-1

01

RIL

K4-7

5

RIL

K4-8

5

RIL

K4-6

7

RIL

K4-5

6

RIL

K4-9

7

RIL

K4-1

1

RIL

K4-3

1

ABG458 ?*

E35M55-216

E40M32-209

E33M58-124

E33M61-441

E37M33-574

HVM22#

E45M55-262

E41M32-522

E42M48-303

E33M61-681

E40M38-112

E38M54-271

BYD score

24 June 2.7 2.3 2.7 2.0 2.3 2.0 1.3 2.3 2.3 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0

17 July 3.0 3.0 2.3 2.3 2.3 1.3 1.7 1.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0


58.9

58.2

56.656.0

54.654.1

60.5

61.5

63.7

64.7

65.5

52.9


RIL

K4-5

RIL

K4-2

0

RIL

K4-1

4

RIL

K4-2

8

RIL

K4-7

3

RIL

K4-1

01

RIL

K4-7

5

RIL

K4-8

5

RIL

K4-6

7

RIL

K4-5

6

RIL

K4-9

7

RIL

K4-1

1

RIL

K4-3

1

ABG458 ?*

E35M55-216

E40M32-209

E33M58-124

E33M61-441

E37M33-574

HVM22#

E45M55-262

E41M32-522

E42M48-303

E33M61-681

E40M38-112

E38M54-271

BYD score

24 June 2.7 2.3 2.7 2.0 2.3 2.0 1.3 2.3 2.3 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0

17 July 3.0 3.0 2.3 2.3 2.3 1.3 1.7 1.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0


RIL

K4-5

RIL

K4-2

0

RIL

K4-1

4

RIL

K4-2

8

RIL

K4-7

3

RIL

K4-1

01

RIL

K4-7

5

RIL

K4-8

5

RIL

K4-6

7

RIL

K4-5

6

RIL

K4-9

7

RIL

K4-1

1

RIL

K4-3

1

ABG458 ?*

E35M55-216

E40M32-209

E33M58-124

E33M61-441

E37M33-574

HVM22#

E45M55-262

E41M32-522

E42M48-303

E33M61-681

E40M38-112

E38M54-271

BYD score

24 June 2.7 2.3 2.7 2.0 2.3 2.0 1.3 2.3 2.3 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0

17 July 3.0 3.0 2.3 2.3 2.3 1.3 1.7 1.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0


6H

Ryd3, σσσσ²part P 75% (Vada x L94)

Niks, R.E., A. Habekuß, B. Bekele, F. Ordon, 2004. Theor. Appl. Genet. Theor. Appl. Genet. 109, 1536-1543

Scheurer, K., W. Huth, R. Waugh, W. Friedt, F. Ordon, 2001. Theor. Appl. Genet. 103:1074-1083

Ryd3 (180 bp)Ryd3 (180 bp)

ryd2

(253 b

p)

Ryd2

(311 b

p)

ryd2

(253 b

p)

Ryd2

(311 b

p)

Ryd3

(HVM74)

Ryd2

(YLP + HSP92 II)

Pyramiding of BYDV-QTL

´RIL K4-56´ (Ryd3) x ´DH21-136´ (Ryd2 + QTL Post)

0,0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1,0

1,2

1,4

1,6

1,8

2,0

Ryd2 Ryd3 QTL+

Ryd2 Ryd3 QTL-

Ryd2 ryd3

QTL+

Ryd2 ryd3 QTL-

ryd2 Ryd3 QTL+

ryd2 Ryd3 QTL-

ryd2 ryd3

QTL+

ryd2 ryd3 QTL-

DH21-136

(Ryd2 ryd3

QTL+)

RIL K4-56

(ryd2 Ryd3 QTL-)

Rub-ina

(ryd2 ryd3

QTL-)

ELIS

A e

xtinction

Allele combination

G F D C E CD A B


(ryd2, ryd3, QTL-) (Ryd2, Ryd3, QTL+)

winter barley, Quedlinburg, April 2008

QTL + (211 bp)

QTL - (218 bp)

QTL + (211 bp)

QTL - (218 bp)

ryd3 (188 bp)ryd3 (188 bp)

QTL Post 2H

(HVCSG)

(HVM74)

rrr rrs rsr srr ssr srs rss sss

No. DH-lines 89 49 45 99 49 77 38 29

Segregation Ryd2/ Ryd3/ Post-QTL

Riedel, C., A. Habekuss, E. Schliephake, R. Niks, I. Broer, F. Ordon, 2011 Theor. Appl. Genet. 123, 69-76.

Rym4/Rym5

MWG838

rym4

P11M36

P21M68

P20M46

0.10

0.97

0.82

A

MWG838+

E37*M36

E37*M63

E35*M81

E39*M39

STSE31*M41+

OP-AF18H971+

rym5

E62*M67

0.88

0.05

0.10

0.05

0.10

B

Y57C10+

0.66

0.034

High resolution mapping

Isolation of resistance genes - allele mining


OP-AF18H971

E45*M69

MWG010

BMac029

P20M46

B368N12

OP-Z040.34

0.05

MWG010+

BMac029*

OP-AF18H971+

E45*M690.34

100 kb

Co-segregation proximal

BAC-contig

figure taken from:Buchanan, Gruissem, Jones (2000)Biochemistry & Molecular Biology of plants

rym5rym4

Stein, N., D. Perovic, J. Kumlehn, B. Pellio, S. Stracke, S. Streng, F. Ordon, A. Graner, 2005. The Plant Journal 42, 912-922

Pellio, B., S. Streng, E. Bauer, N. Stein, D. Perovic, A. Schiemann, W. Friedt, F. Ordon, A. Graner 2005. Appl. Genet. 110, 283-293.

Wicker et al. 2005. The Plant Journal, 41, 184-194

Hofinger et al. 2011. Molecular Ecology 20, 3653-3668

Summary and future prospects

Molecular markers facilitate already today efficient selection procedures to improve virus resistance in cereals

The availability of dense marker maps, highthroughput genotyping platforms, physical maps and

HVMX!

OP-XX1

rymX

HVMX”

OP-XX

3.8

2.5

8.2

8.3

rymX C_XXXXX1_A C_3PO

GBSXXXX-1

kXXXX-2

MarkercM

0,751

0,072

0,107

0,072

0,572

U32_XXXX

kXXXX-4

0,036

0,143

C_XXXXX2_B

C_XXXXX3_B

0,036

454_XXXX-1


throughput genotyping platforms, physical maps andgenome sequences of cereals itself and relatedspecies will facilitate an enhanced isolation of virusresistance genes in the future thereby leading to adeeper understanding of virus resistance and thetransfer of marker based selection to the allele level.

4HL

GBSXXXX-2

Fernie, A.R., N. Schauer, 2008: Trends in Genetics 25, 39-48

This together with new selection strategies, e.g.genomic selection procedures, will lead to anenhanced breeding of virus resistant cultivars.

Thanks

BaMMV/BaYMVProf. Dr. Wolfgang FriedtDr. Andrea SchiemannDr. Bettina PellioDr. Kay WernerDr. Katrin HumbroichDr. Antje HabekußDr. Ilona KrämerProf. Dr. Andreas Graner

SBCMVDr. Dragan Perovic

Dr. Pierre DevauxDr. Djabar HaririDr. Jens WeyenDr. Kostya Kanyuka


Prof. Dr. Andreas GranerDr. Nils SteinDr. Dragan Perovic

FundingDFGGFPEUBMELVBMBF

BYDVDr. Winfried HuthDr. Konstanze ScheurerDr. Antje HabekußDr. Rients NiksChristine Riedel

Documents

Breeding for virus resistance in cereals · 2018. 8. 17. · Wheat - Triticum Barley yellow dwarf virus, Wheat dwarf virus, Soil-borne wheat mosaic virus, Wheat spindle streak mosaic