Resistance of European Spring 2-Row Barley Cultivars to Pyrenophora graminea and Detection of Associated Loci
by
, , , and
Nadia Faccini
1
,
Stefano Delbono
1,
Arzu Çelik Oğuz
2,
Luigi Cattivelli
1,
Giampiero Valè
3 and
Alessandro Tondelli
1,*
1
CREA Research Centre for Genomics and Bioinformatics, Via San Protaso 302, 29017 Fiorenzuola d’Arda, Italy
2
Department of Plant Protection, Faculty of Agriculture, Ankara University, Dışkapı, 06110 Ankara, Turkey
3
DiSIT, Dipartimento di Scienze e Innovazione Tecnologica, University of Piemonte Orientale, Piazza S. Eusebio 5, 13100 Vercelli, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2021, 11(2), 374; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11020374
Submission received: 31 December 2020
/
Revised: 16 February 2021
/
Accepted: 18 February 2021
/
Published: 20 February 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Genetic Diversity of Disease Resistance in Crops)
Abstract
:Pyrenophora graminea is the seed-borne pathogen causal agent of barley leaf stripe disease. In this work, we screened a collection of 206 spring two-row barley cultivars from Europe for their resistance to the fungal pathogen. Artificial inoculation with the highly virulent isolate Dg2 revealed a continuous variation for the incidence of infection, with few highly resistant or highly susceptible genotypes. On average, old cultivars showed higher resistance than the more modern ones. Genome-Wide Association Scan was performed by exploiting available molecular data for >4000 SNP markers and revealed a single, highly significant association on the short arm of chromosome 6H, in a genomic position where quantitative trait loci (QTL) for barley resistance to P. graminea were not detected before. Based on the last version of the reference barley genome, genes encoding for proteins with a kinase domain were suggested as candidates for the locus.
1. Introduction
Leaf Stripe is a seed-borne, single cycle disease of barley caused by the fungus Pyrenophora graminea (S. Ito and Kurib.) [anamorph: Drechslera graminea (Rabenh. exSchlecht.) Shoemaker (=Helminthosporium gramineum Rabh.)]. The pathogen can survive in the host pericarp as mycelium, and it penetrates during seed germination through the coleorhizae, developing systemically along with the plant [1]. The fungus infects barley seedlings, especially when soil temperatures during seed germination are below 12 °C, such as in the Mediterranean countries under winter sowing or in the Nordic countries under spring sowing. Disease symptoms start with the occurrence of yellow stripes on seedling leaves; they turn into chlorotic and necrotic stripes in time. Serious infections cause plants to desiccate and develop sterile spikes, up to premature death, thus affecting yield and quality of the crop [2,3]. Many countries reported severe yield losses because of the fungal disease [4,5,6,7].
Generally, leaf stripe is controlled by seed dressing with chemical compounds; however, the identification and exploitation of resistant genotypes is fundamental to decrease the use of pesticides in agriculture and for organic farming. Both race-specific [8,9] and partial resistance [10,11,12] to barley leaf stripe were reported. The first study was carried out by Skou and Haahr [13], who tested the response of 1029 different barley accessions to P. graminea infection, allowing the identification of several resistance sources; many of them postulated to be originally derived from Hordeum laevigatum through the cv. Vada. Giese et al. [14] reported a semi-dominant single gene on chromosome 2H as responsible of the “Vada Resistance” in European spring barleys. Two mapping populations developed from the crosses Alf × Vogelsanger Gold and L94 × Vada independently mapped the “Vada resistance” gene (named Rdgla) on the long arm of chromosome 2H [8,11]. Biselli et al. [15] analyzed the L94 (susceptible) × Vada (resistant) and Arta (susceptible) × Hordeum spontaneum 41-1 (resistant) mapping populations and mapped Rdg1a to a smaller genomic interval of chromosome 2H. Their result also suggested that Rdg1a might be derived from Hordeum spontaneum, but the causal gene is yet undetermined.
Following Rgd1a, the qualitative resistance gene Rdg2a was mapped on the short arm of the chromosome 7H in highly resistant six-row winter barleys [9,16]. The locus showed resistance to a minimum of three highly virulent Italian isolates; however, it was not efficient against the highly virulent Dg5 isolate. After fine mapping [17] the Rdg2a gene was cloned by a map-based approach [18], and the organization and evolution of locus were characterized, together with a histological/molecular dissection of the Rdg2a-based barley leaf stripe resistance.
It was frequently reported that spring barleys have quantitative resistance to barley leaf stripe. Pecchioni et al. [10] studied the reaction of the population derived from two-row spring barley cultivars Proctor (hulled) and Nudinka (hulless) to P. graminea and mapped the so-called “Proctor-resistance” as a quantitative trait locus (QTL) on the centromeric region of chromosome 7H. The relation between hulless seed and susceptibility to P. graminea was emphasized in this study. A second QTL was detected on chromosome 2H. Similarly, Arru et al. [11] mapped two QLTs for leaf stripe resistance in the L94 × C123 mapping population: the QTL on chromosome 7H overlapped with Proctor-resistance, while the QTL on chromosome 2H did not. Finally, Arru et al. [12] tested the Steptoe × Morex population for susceptibility to the highly virulent P. graminea isolates Dg2 and Dg5, in order to investigate the isolate specificity of partial resistance to the fungus. They found that a QTL on the long arm of chromosome 2H and two QTLs located on chromosome 3H conferred resistance to both the isolates. Furthermore, it was determined that a QTL on the short arm of chromosome 2H was specific to the isolate Dg2, while a QTL located on chromosome 5H was specific to the isolate Dg5.
In this work, a highly virulent isolate of Pyrenophora graminea was used to artificially inoculate a collection of >200 spring barley cultivars from Europe to identify novel sources of resistance to the fungal pathogen and map the involved loci through a Genome-Wide Association Scan approach.
2. File, and Methods
2.1. Plant Material
A collection of 206 spring 2-row barley cultivars, fully representative of the diversity of spring barleys bred in Europe in the 20th century [19], was used in the present work (Supplementary File, Table S1). The panel was previously genotyped with the barley 9k Infinium iSelect array [20], and the description of population structure, genetic diversity and linkage disequilibrium was reported by Tondelli et al. (2013). In the present work, 4016 informative SNPs were maintained, after filtering for call rate (CR) >95% and minor allele frequency (MAF) >5% (Supplementary File, Table S2). Their physical position on the most recent version of the Morex reference genomic sequence [21] was retrieved from the Germinate Barley SNP Platforms hosted at the James Hutton Institute (https://ics.hutton.ac.uk/50k/index.pl, accessed on 19 February 2021).
2.2. Inoculation Test and Disease Evaluation
The resistance of spring 2-row barley cultivars was assessed by artificial inoculation with the highly virulent Pyrenophora graminea isolate Dg5 [5], using the “sandwich” method described in Pecchioni et al. [10]. For each accession, 60 seeds were surface-sterilized in 70% ethanol for 30 s and 5% NaOCl for 10 min, then rinsed in deionized water, left to dry and incubated in two Petri dishes (30 seeds each) between two potato dextrose agar (PDA) layers colonized by an actively growing mycelium of the fungus. Seeds were incubated for 20 days at 6 °C in the dark, and emerged seedlings were transplanted to six 12 cm pots (10 plants/pot) and grown in a greenhouse, following a randomized complete-block design with two replications (three adjacent pots/replication). At the fourth leaf stage, the incidence of infection (i.e., the percentage of plants showing leaf stripes symptoms) was recorded for each genotype. The whole experiment was replicated in three different years, with transplanting occurring at the begin of March. Repeatability across experiments was estimated from the variance components calculated after fitting a fully random effects model as H2 = Vg / [Vg + (Vgy/y) + (Ve/ry)], where Vg is the genotypic variance, Vgy is the genotype x year interaction variance, Ve is the error variance, y is the number of years and r is the number of replicates.
2.3. Genome-Wide Association Scans
Markers with CR > 95% and MAF > 5% were used for detecting loci associated with spring barley resistance to P. graminea. Genome-Wide Association Scans (GWAS) were carried out using a mixed linear model (MLM) approach in Tassel v3.0 [22], which considers population substructure and genetic relatedness by including a kinship matrix as a random term. MLM was run without compression and P3D estimation. Thresholds for detecting significant SNP associations were calculated by False Discovery Rate (FDR) with the R package “qvalue”. Genes with a putative role in the response of barley to pathogen infection were searched among the High Confidence genes annotated at associated genomic regions, based on the Morex reference genomic sequence [21].
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Incidence of P. graminea Infection in Spring 2-Row Barley Cultivars
In this work, a three-year experiment of artificial inoculation under controlled conditions with a high virulent isolate of P. graminea was performed to assess the resistance of a collection of 206 spring two-row European barley cultivars. Together with the isolate Dg2, the isolate Dg5 used here was the most virulent when tested on a large collection of barley cultivars [5]. A continuous variation in the average incidence of infection was observed, with a distribution skewed towards resistant phenotypes (Figure 1). Similar distribution of phenotypic classes frequency suggesting quantitative resistance to leaf stripe disease has been already observed in barley [10,11,12,16].
Analysis of variance revealed significant effects for both the experiment factor, with a lower incidence of infection in the experiment no.3 (Supplementary File, Figure S1), and the genotype x experiment interaction (Supplementary File, Table S3). The repeatability value was 0.69, suggesting a highly relevant genetic control on the scored phenotype, hence a high probability to detect significant marker-trait-associations through GWAS (see Section 3.2).
Tondelli et al. [19] observed a clear temporal trend in the diversity of the barley collection employed in this work, with modern and old varieties belonging to distinct subgroups (K1 and K2, respectively) and several admixed genotypes positioned between the two subgroups in a SNP-based Principal Coordinate plot. When K1 and K2 subgroups were considered in the analysis of P. graminea infection data, old barley cultivars showed a significantly lower incidence of the disease with respect to the modern ones (p < 0.05), with average values of 33.9% and 43.4%, respectively (Table 1). It could be hypothesized that recently deployed seed dressing chemical compounds allowing leaf stripe disease control decreased the need of selection pressure towards leaf stripe resistance in more recently released barley cultivars.
When considering the most represented countries in the collection, higher resistance to leaf stripe was noticed in old genotypes from Latvia, Denmark and Sweden (STRUCTURE group 2 in Table 1) with respect to more recent cultivars from the United Kingdom, Germany and Denmark (STRUCTURE group 1 in Table 1; Supplementary File, Table S1). In more detail, 10 genotypes (Nordal, Vada, Ida, Golf, Alva, Imber, Lud, Tyra, Idumeja, Drost and Leeni) displayed symptoms in <10% of the plants (Supplementary File, Table S1). Except for the Estonian modern cultivar Leeni, the other nine cultivars belong to the structure group 2 (old varieties) or admixed and were released in Denmark (n = 3), the UK (n = 3), Sweden (n = 2), the Netherlands (n = 1) and Latvia (n = 1).
3.2. Genome Wide Association Scan
The phenotypic data collected on the spring barley population were associated with 4016 informative genome-wide SNP markers to identify genomic regions associated with P. graminea resistance. When considering the mean incidence of infection over the three replications of the experiment or data from the single experiments, mixed linear models in Tassel identified a single, highly significant SNP (−log10(P) = 11.2; FDR-corrected p < 1 × 10−4) on the short arm of chromosome 6H, at position 9,712,203 (Figure 2 and Supplementary File, Figures S2 and S3). This SNP (BOPA1_5993-2383) does not segregate uniformly in the barley population under analysis; in fact, the reference “A” allele was observed in 192 genotypes out of 206 (93.2%), while the alternative “T” allele was present in 11 genotypes (5.3%). For 3 cultivars, it was not possible to assign an allele at this locus.
The average incidence of infection for the cultivars with the “T” allele—namely, Alexis, Alis, Birka, Doublet, Elo, Felicitas, Gate, Meltan, Roland, Saana, Triumph—was more than double the value observed for cultivars carrying the reference allele (76.5% vs. 36.9%). Among these highly susceptible genotypes is the German cultivar Triumph (also known as Trumpf), a widespread donor of yield and malting quality traits [23], and also a parent of Alexis, Alis, Doublet, Elo and Meltan (Supplementary File, Table S1). Alis showed a lower value of 43.5% infected plants across the three experiments, although a higher incidence of infection of 65.2% was registered in the third experiment, which on average was less severe.
The most resistant cultivars harbored the “A” allele, although within this class fall also 10 cultivars with >75% of infected plants (Supplementary File, Table S1). This resistance allele was the most frequent in the collection, while the rare alternative one was related to susceptibility; this may be due to a quantitative resistance gene being almost fixed in spring barleys. Since leaf stripe is not considered among the major diseases of barley, and breeding programs in Europe usually do not specifically focus on P. graminea resistance; genetic linkage between BOPA1_5993-2383 and other important selected genes may support the hypothesis of a resistance locus unconsciously selected because of its linkage to valuable traits in spring barley.
Although a continuous phenotypic variation and high heritability of the measured trait were observed, no other significant loci were detected in this work when the mean values across the three experiments were used for GWAS. No significant association was observed, for example, at the Rdg1a locus, mapping at the telomere of chromosome 2HL [15]. Rdg1a is commonly referred to as the “Vada resistance” gene, because it was introduced into spring barleys through the cultivar Vada [16]. In the collection screened here, Vada is the parent of five cultivars only (i.e., Abacus, Alva, Egmont, Lud and Salka), and these are themselves in the pedigree of the cultivars Claret, Dandy, Roland and Golf (Supplementary File, Table S1). Although 7 out of 9 of these cultivars show leaf stripe symptoms in <15% of the plants, Rdg1a is most probably segregating at low frequency (i.e., <5%) in the population, and for this reason, markers associated with Rdg1a were filtered out in GWA analysis. Similarly, Rdg2a on chromosome 7H was detected in winter six-row barleys [9] and may not be present in the collection under study. Other low-frequency resistance genes may be responsible for the low susceptibility to leaf stripe observed in cultivars, such as Nordal (Heine 4808 × Dana, from Carlsberg, Denmark) or Ida (Arla M1 × Tellus, from Weibull, Sweden), but their detection needs different genetic approaches, such as the development of bi-parental mapping population and linkage analysis. On the other hand, the partial resistance to P. graminea observed in this work might be based on different mechanisms with respect to qualitative resistance.
Despite the moderate levels of linkage disequilibrium observed in the population [19], the low marker density especially around the centromeric regions (Figure 2) may preclude the identification of P. graminea resistance loci. This may be the case of the “Proctor-resistance” QTL mapped at the centromere of chromosome 7H [10].
3.3. Identification of Putative Candidate Genes
Thirty-six SNP markers are physically mapped in a 15 Mb genomic interval surrounding the leaf stripe resistance locus identified on chromosome 6H. None of these SNP shows high levels of linkage disequilibrium with BOPA1_5993-2383 (Figure 3), and small LD blocks are detected through Haploview analysis, which is consistent with other observations on telomeric regions in barley [24]. Based on this observation, we defined a confidence interval for the detected locus that spans from the SNP more distal to BOPA1_5993-2383 (at 9.18 Mb) to the more proximal one (at 10.49 Mb).
Based on the most recent version of the reference barley genome sequence (cultivar Morex, [21]), 28 high-confidence genes are annotated in this 1.3 Mb genomic interval of chromosome 6H (Table 2). The single, highly significant SNP detected in this work maps in the 3′ untranslated region of the gene HORVU.MOREX.r2.6HG0451070 that is annotated as U5 small nuclear ribonucleoprotein helicase (U5 snRNP). snRNPs are components of the spliceosome for pre-mRNA splicing, but to our knowledge, their possible role in the plant response to pathogen has not been described; nine genes are annotated as U5 snRNP in the barley genome.
Among the 13 high-confidence genes neighboring HORVU.MOREX.r2.6HG0451070, 12 encode for protein kinase family proteins (n = 5), wall-associated kinase-like proteins (n = 4), kinase family proteins (n = 2) or receptor-like protein kinase (n = 1; Table 2). Plant wall-associated kinases (WAKs) are a class of receptor-like kinases that bind to the cell wall through an extracellular and a transmembrane domain; a serine threonine kinase intracellular domain functions as activator of a signaling cascade. Other than regulating cell expansion by binding to cell wall pectin polymers [25], it has been suggested that WAKs can sense cell wall integrity under stressing conditions [26] and can thus play important roles in host basal resistance [27]. In wheat, the wall-associated receptor kinase-like protein TaWAKL4 was identified by map-based cloning of the Stb6 locus, conferring race-specific resistance to Zymoseptoria tritici [28]. The rice OsWAK (Xa4) gene confers resistance to bacterial blight by enhancing the biosynthesis of cellulose and strengthening the cell wall [29], and quantitative resistance to corn leaf blight is associated with the maize ZmWAK-RLK1 (Htn1) gene that reduces pathogen penetration into host tissues [30]. By comparing the transcriptomes of two barley genotypes during infection with P. graminea, Ghannam et al. [31] identified candidate genes possibly involved in callose deposition and different oxidation processes with a major role in the interaction between the host plant and the pathogen. Similarly, a histological and transcriptome analysis of barley to leaf stripe infection identified differential responses for cell wall modifications and induction of cell-wall reinforcement-related genes when compatible and incompatible interactions were compared [32].
Interestingly, the Parastagonospora nodorum resistance locus Snn1 of wheat encodes for a member of the wall-associated kinase class of receptors that acts as a susceptibility factor, since it recognizes the SnTox1 toxin produced by the necrotrophic fungal pathogen to activate cell death, thus allowing P. nodorum to proliferate [33]. Based on these observations, the four wall-associated kinase-like proteins located at the leaf stripe resistance locus detected here could represent candidate genes for the resistance function encoded by the 6H leaf stripe resistance locus. Nevertheless, expression analyses, re-sequencing and allele mining experiments will be necessary to better resolve the complexity of the locus. It should finally be noted that an NBS-LRR resistance-like protein, which represents the proteins encoded by the major classes of plant disease resistance genes, maps at position 9.18 Mb, at the distal side of the genomic interval associated with P. graminea resistance. Conversely, HORVU.MOREX.r2.6HG0450720, the ortholog of the wheat kinase-pseudokinase WTK1 gene underlying the yellow rust resistance locus Yr15 [34], maps at position 8.45 Mb on chromosome 6H, outside of the LD-based confidence interval defined above.
In conclusion, in the present work, spring two-row barley cultivars from Europe with high resistance to Pyrenophora graminea were identified, and a novel highly significant locus associated with resistance/susceptibility to the fungus was mapped on the short arm of chromosome 6H. Taken together, these results may help resistance breeding towards this important seed-borne pathogen, with a particular interest for organic farming and for decreasing the use of chemical compounds in seed dressing.
Supplementary Materials
The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4395/11/2/374/s1, Figure S1: box-plot of incidence of infection in the three independent experiments; Figure S2: Manhattan Plots for resistance to P. graminea in the three independent experiments; Figure S3: Q-Q plot of p-values from the GWAS with the average phenotypic values across the three experiments; Table S1: list of spring barley cultivars tested in the present work, with incidence of P. graminea infection and allele at the SNP marker BOPA1_5993-2383; Table S2: SNP matrix used for GWAS. Table S3: ANOVA table for the incidence of P. graminea infection collected in the present work.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, L.C., G.V. and A.T. Data curation, N.F., A.Ç.O., L.C., G.V. and A.T.; Formal analysis, N.F., S.D., A.Ç.O. and A.T.; Writing–Original draft, N.F., A.Ç.O. and A.T.; Writing–Review & editing, N.F., S.D., A.Ç.O., L.C., G.V. and A.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research was funded by Ministero delle politiche agricole alimentari e forestali, project DIBIO “Riduzione input di origine extra-aziendale per la difesa delle coltivazioni biologiche mediante approccio-agroecologico”, sub-project CERES-BIO-Cereali resistenti a malattie fungine trasmesse da seme per l’agricoltura biologica.
Data Availability Statement
All the data are provided in Supplementary Files.
Acknowledgments
The manuscript is dedicated to A. Michele Stanca, who gave an outstanding contribution in the genetic dissection of barley resistance to Pyrenophora graminea.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
- Platenkamp, R. Investigations on the infection pathway of Drechslera graminea in germinating barley. R. Vet. Agric. Univ. Yearb. 1976, 49–64. [Google Scholar]
- Tekauz, A.; Chiko, A.W. Leaf stripe of barley caused by Pyrenophora graminea: Occurrence in Canada and comparisons with barley stripe mosaic. Can. J. Plant Pathol. 1980, 2, 152–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zad, J.; Aghakhani, M.; Etebarian, R.; Okhovat, M. Barley leaf stripe disease. Mededelingen 2002, 67, 279–281. [Google Scholar]
- Porta-Puglia, A.; Delogu, G.; Vanacci, G. Pyrenophora graminea on winter barley seed: Effect on disease incidence and yield loss. J. Phytopathol. 1986, 117, 26–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gatti, A.; Rizza, F.; Delogu, G.; Terzi, V.; Porta-Puglia, A.; Vannacci, G. Physiological and biochemical variability in a population of Drechslera graminea. J. Genet. Breed. 1992, 46, 179–186. [Google Scholar]
- Mueller, K.J.; Valè, G.; Enneking, D. Selection of resistant spring barley accessions after natural infection with leaf stripe (Pyrenophora graminea) under organic farming conditions in Germany and by sandwich test. J. Plant Pathol. 2003, 85, 9–14. [Google Scholar]
- Karakaya, A.; Mert, Z.; Çelik Oğuz, A.; Çetin, L. Distribution of barley stripe disease in Central Anatolia, Turkey. Selcuk J. Agric. Food Sci. 2016, 30, 59–61. [Google Scholar]
- Thomsen, S.B.; Jensen, H.P.; Jensen, J.; Skou, J.P.; Jørgensen, J.H. Localization of a resistance gene and identification of sources of resistance to barley leaf stripe. Plant Breed. 1997, 116, 455–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tacconi, G.; Cattivelli, L.; Faccini, N.; Pecchioni, N.; Stanca, A.M.; Valé, G. Identification and mapping of a new leaf stripe resistance gene in barley (Hordeum vulgare L.). Theor. Appl. Genet. 2001, 102, 1286–1291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pecchioni, N.; Faccioli, P.; Toubia-Rahme, H.; Valè, G.; Terzi, V. Quantitative resistance to barley leaf stripe (Pyrenophora graminea) is dominated by one major locus. Theor. Appl. Genet. 1996, 93, 97–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arru, L.; Nicks, R.E.; Lindhout, P.; Valè, G.; Francia, E.; Pecchioni, N. Genomic regions determining resistance to leaf stripe (Pyrenophora graminea) in barley. Genome 2002, 45, 460–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Arru, L.; Francia, E.; Pecchioni, N. Isolate-specific QTLs of resistance to leaf stripe (Pyrenophora graminea) in the Steptoe × Morex spring barley cross. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2003, 106, 668–675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Skou, J.P.; Haahr, V. Screening for and Inheritance of Resistance to Barley Leaf Stripe (Drechslera graminea); Risø report 554; Risø National Laboratory: Roskilde, Denmark, 1987. [Google Scholar]
- Giese, H.; Holm-Jensen, A.G.; Jensen, H.P.; Jensen, J. Localization of the Laevigatum powdery mildew resistance gene to barley chromosome 2H by the use of RFLP markers. Theor. Appl. Genet. 1993, 85, 897–900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Biselli, C.; Urso, S.; Bernardo, L.; Tondelli, A.; Tacconi, G.; Martino, V.; Grando, S.; Valè, G. Identification and mapping of the leaf stripe resistance gene Rdg1a in Hordeum spontaneum. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2010, 120, 1207–1218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Skou, J.P.; Nielsen, B.J.; Haahr, V. Evaluation and importance of genetic resistance to leaf stripe in western European barleys. Acta Agric. Scand. Sect B Plant Soil Sci. 1994, 44, 98–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bulgarelli, D.; Collins, N.C.; Tacconi, G.; Dellaglio, E.; Brueggeman, R.; Kleinhofs, A.; Stanca, A.M.; Valè, G. High resolution genetic mapping of the leaf stripe resistance gene Rdg2a in barley. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2004, 108, 1401–1408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bulgarelli, D.; Biselli, C.; Collins, N.C.; Consonni, G.; Stanca, A.M.; Schulze-Lefert, P.; Vale, G. The CC-NB-LRR-Type Rdg2a Resistance Gene Confers Immunity to the Seed-Borne Barley Leaf Stripe Pathogen in the Absence of Hypersensitive Cell Death. PLoS ONE 2010, 5, e12599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tondelli, A.; Xu, X.; Moragues, M. Structural and temporal variation in genetic diversity of European spring two-row barley cultivars and association mapping of quantitative traits. Plant Genome 2013, 6, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Comadran, J.; Kilian, B.; Russell, J.; Ramsay, L.; Stein, N.; Ganal, M.; Shaw, P.; Bayer, M.; Thomas, W.; Marshall, D.; et al. Natural variation in a homolog of Antirrhinum CENTRORADIALIS contributed to spring growth habit and environmental adaptation in cultivated barley. Nat. Genet. 2012, 44, 13881392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Monat, C.; Padmarasu, S.; Lux, T. TRITEX: Chromosome-scale sequence assembly of Triticeae genomes with open-source tools. Genome Biol. 2019, 20, 284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Bradbury, P.J. TASSEL: Software for association mapping of complex traits in diverse samples. Bioinformatics 2007, 23, 2633–2635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fischbeck, G. Barley cultivar development in Europe—Success in the past and possible changes in the future. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Barley Genetics Symposium, Helsingborg, Sweden, 22–27 July 1991; Munck, L., Kirkegaard, K., Jensen, B., Eds.; Munksgaard International Publishers: Copenhagen, Demark, 1991; Volume 2, pp. 885–901. [Google Scholar]
- Bustos-Korts, D.; Dawson, I.K.; Russell, J.; Tondelli, A.; Guerra, D.; Ferrandi, C.; Strozzi, F.; Nicolazzi, E.L.; Molnar-Lang, M.; Ozkan, H.; et al. Exome sequences and multi-environment field trials elucidate the genetic basis of adaptation in barley. Plant J. 2019, 99, 1172–1191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wagner, T.A.; Kohorn, B. Wall associated kinases, WAKs, are expressed throughout plant development and are required for cell expansion. Plant Cell. 2001, 13, 303–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Rui, Y.; Dinneny, J.R. A wall with integrity: Surveillance and maintenance of the plant cell wall under stress. New Phytol. 2020, 225, 1428–1439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Amsbury, S. Sensing attack: The role of wall-associated kinases in plant pathogen responses. Plant Physiol. 2020, 183, 1420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Saintenac, C.; Lee, W.-S.; Cambon, F.; Rudd, J.J.; King, R.C.; Marande, W.; Powers, S.J.; Bergès, H.; Phillips, A.L.; Uauy, C.; et al. Wheat receptor-kinase-like protein Stb6 controls gene-for-gene resistance to fungal pathogen Zymoseptoria tritici. Nat. Genet. 2018, 50, 368–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hu, K.M.; Cao, J.B.; Zhang, J.; Xia, F.; Ke, Y.G.; Zhang, H.T.; Xie, W.Y.; Liu, H.B.; Cui, Y.; Cao, Y.L.; et al. Improvement of multiple agronomic traits by a disease resistance gene via cell wall reinforcement. Nat. Plants 2017, 3, 17009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yang, P.; Praz, C.; Li, B.; Singla, J.; Robert, C.A.M.; Kessel, B.; Scheuermann, D.; Lüthi, L.; Ouzunova, M.; Erb, M.; et al. Fungal resistance mediated by maize wall-associated kinase ZmWAK-RLK1 correlates with reduced benzoxazinoid content. New Phytol. 2019, 221, 976–987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Ghannam, A.; Alek, H.; Doumani, S.; Mansour, D.; Arabi, M.I.E. Deciphering the transcriptional regulation and spatiotemporal distribution of immunity response in barley to Pyrenophora graminea fungal invasion. BMC Genom. 2016, 17, 256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Haegi, A.; Bonardi, V.; Dall’Aglio, E.; Glissant, D.; Tumino, G.; Collins, N.; Bulgarelli, D.; Infantino, A.; Stanca, A.M.; Delledonne, M.; et al. Histological and molecular analysis of Rdg2a barley resistance to leaf stripe. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2008, 9, 463–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shi, G.; Zhang, Z.; Friesen, T.L.; Raats, D.; Fahima, T.; Brueggeman, R.S.; Lu, S.; Trick, H.N.; Liu, Z.; Chao, W.; et al. The hijacking of a receptor kinase-driven pathway by a wheat fungal pathogen leads to disease. Sci. Adv. 2016, 2, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Klymiuk, V.; Yaniv, E.; Huang, L.; Raats, D.; Fatiukha, A.; Chen, S.; Feng, L.; Frenkel, Z.; Krugman, T.; Lidzbarsky, G.; et al. Cloning of the wheat Yr15 resistance gene sheds light on the plant tandem kinase-pseudokinase family. Nat. Commun. 2018, 9, 3735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Figure 1.
Frequency distribution of the incidence of P. graminea infection (i.e., the percentage of plants showing leaf stripes symptoms, averaged across the three experiments) in 206 spring 2-row barley cultivars.
Figure 1.
Frequency distribution of the incidence of P. graminea infection (i.e., the percentage of plants showing leaf stripes symptoms, averaged across the three experiments) in 206 spring 2-row barley cultivars.
Figure 2.
Manhattan Plot showing the results of the Genome-Wide Association Scan for spring barley resistance to leaf stripe. SNP markers mapping to the seven barley chromosomes are in different colors. The dashed line represents the 0.05 FDR threshold.
Figure 2.
Manhattan Plot showing the results of the Genome-Wide Association Scan for spring barley resistance to leaf stripe. SNP markers mapping to the seven barley chromosomes are in different colors. The dashed line represents the 0.05 FDR threshold.
Figure 3.
Levels of linkage disequilibrium at the genomic interval associated with leaf stripe reScheme 6. H, from 9.18 Mb to 10.49 Mb. A white-to-black color scale indicates the correlation between 36 SNP markers, based on Haploview analysis.
Figure 3.
Levels of linkage disequilibrium at the genomic interval associated with leaf stripe reScheme 6. H, from 9.18 Mb to 10.49 Mb. A white-to-black color scale indicates the correlation between 36 SNP markers, based on Haploview analysis.
Table 1.
Incidence of P. graminea infection in spring barley cultivars grouped according to STRUCTURE analysis and country of origin.
Table 1.
Incidence of P. graminea infection in spring barley cultivars grouped according to STRUCTURE analysis and country of origin.
| Country of Origin | No. Genotypes | Mean Infection Incidence |
|---|---|---|
| STRUCTURE group 1 | ||
| Austria | 1 | 20.3 |
| Czech Republic | 12 | 37.0 |
| Denmark | 21 | 41.5 |
| Estonia | 1 | 7.0 |
| France | 1 | 20.9 |
| Germany | 21 | 42.9 |
| Latvia | 1 | 94.8 |
| Netherlands | 3 | 30.6 |
| Slovak Republic | 2 | 43.4 |
| United Kingdom | 15 | 56.5 |
| Total | 78 | 43.4 |
| STRUCTURE group admixed | ||
| Austria | 2 | 43.3 |
| Czech Republic | 13 | 34.3 |
| Denmark | 8 | 40.1 |
| Estonia | 2 | 59.1 |
| Finland | 2 | 32.5 |
| France | 4 | 39.3 |
| Germany | 6 | 44.3 |
| Italy | 1 | 73.4 |
| Latvia | 7 | 35.0 |
| Netherlands | 8 | 40.9 |
| Slovak Republic | 1 | 37.4 |
| Sweden | 4 | 40.9 |
| United Kingdom | 8 | 28.3 |
| Total | 66 | 38.4 |
| STRUCTURE group 2 | ||
| Denmark | 11 | 23.1 |
| Finland | 6 | 56.5 |
| France | 1 | 83.3 |
| Italy | 2 | 33.7 |
| Latvia | 5 | 18.0 |
| Netherlands | 4 | 37.7 |
| Norway | 1 | 48.4 |
| Sweden | 27 | 34.0 |
| United Kingdom | 5 | 30.3 |
| Total | 62 | 33.9 |
Table 2.
High-confidence barley genes annotated in the 1.3 Mb genomic interval of chromosome 6H associated with the resistance to P. graminea in the spring barley cultivar collection.
Table 2.
High-confidence barley genes annotated in the 1.3 Mb genomic interval of chromosome 6H associated with the resistance to P. graminea in the spring barley cultivar collection.
| Gene | Position_Start | Position_End | Annotation |
|---|---|---|---|
| HORVU.MOREX.r2.6HG0450940 | 9181207 | 9183058 | NBS-LRR resistance-like protein |
| HORVU.MOREX.r2.6HG0450970 | 9287388 | 9289667 | Zinc finger with UFM1-specific peptidase domain protein |
| HORVU.MOREX.r2.6HG0450990 | 9292853 | 9293407 | Heat shock protein 70 (Hsp 70) family protein |
| HORVU.MOREX.r2.6HG0451000 | 9308835 | 9309251 | Serine/threonine protein phosphatase 7 long form isogeny |
| HORVU.MOREX.r2.6HG0451010 | 9383225 | 9385148 | F-box domain containing protein |
| HORVU.MOREX.r2.6HG0451040 | 9453725 | 9455308 | Kinase family protein |
| HORVU.MOREX.r2.6HG0451050 | 9547723 | 9551610 | Transmembrane protein |
| HORVU.MOREX.r2.6HG0451060 | 9552594 | 9554093 | Kinase family protein |
| HORVU.MOREX.r2.6HG0451070 | 9704603 | 9712201 | U5 small nuclear ribonucleoprotein helicase |
| HORVU.MOREX.r2.6HG0451080 | 9742211 | 9744382 | Protein kinase family protein |
| HORVU.MOREX.r2.6HG0451090 | 9745927 | 9746731 | Wall-associated kinase-like protein |
| HORVU.MOREX.r2.6HG0451100 | 9772601 | 9824626 | Receptor-like protein kinase |
| HORVU.MOREX.r2.6HG0451110 | 9872022 | 9873296 | Protein kinase family protein |
| HORVU.MOREX.r2.6HG0451160 | 9900818 | 9901225 | Wall-associated receptor kinase 5 |
| HORVU.MOREX.r2.6HG0451170 | 9943083 | 9946721 | Protein kinase family protein |
| HORVU.MOREX.r2.6HG0451210 | 9988000 | 9988962 | Wall-associated receptor kinase 5 |
| HORVU.MOREX.r2.6HG0451220 | 10050772 | 10055369 | Protein kinase family protein |
| HORVU.MOREX.r2.6HG0451270 | 10170204 | 10175665 | Protein kinase family protein |
| HORVU.MOREX.r2.6HG0451280 | 10175679 | 10176481 | wall-associated receptor kinase-like protein |
| HORVU.MOREX.r2.6HG0451290 | 10211221 | 10212693 | 3-ketoacyl-CoA synthase |
| HORVU.MOREX.r2.6HG0451310 | 10236832 | 10238547 | Chloroplast stem-loop binding protein |
| HORVU.MOREX.r2.6HG0451320 | 10270618 | 10272058 | F-box domain containing protein, expressed |
| HORVU.MOREX.r2.6HG0451340 | 10297765 | 10299204 | Plant/F1M20-13 protein |
| HORVU.MOREX.r2.6HG0451360 | 10421589 | 10427171 | Two-component response regulator |
| HORVU.MOREX.r2.6HG0451370 | 10443935 | 10449495 | Two-component response regulator |
| HORVU.MOREX.r2.6HG0451400 | 10462773 | 10466795 | Holliday junction ATP-dependent DNA helicase RuvB |
| HORVU.MOREX.r2.6HG0451420 | 10470836 | 10480123 | Lysine-specific demethylase 3B |
| HORVU.MOREX.r2.6HG0451430 | 10490144 | 10493431 | Protein kinesin light chain-related 3 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Faccini, N.; Delbono, S.; Çelik Oğuz, A.; Cattivelli, L.; Valè, G.; Tondelli, A. Resistance of European Spring 2-Row Barley Cultivars to Pyrenophora graminea and Detection of Associated Loci. Agronomy 2021, 11, 374. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11020374
AMA Style
Faccini N, Delbono S, Çelik Oğuz A, Cattivelli L, Valè G, Tondelli A. Resistance of European Spring 2-Row Barley Cultivars to Pyrenophora graminea and Detection of Associated Loci. Agronomy. 2021; 11(2):374. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11020374
Chicago/Turabian StyleFaccini, Nadia, Stefano Delbono, Arzu Çelik Oğuz, Luigi Cattivelli, Giampiero Valè, and Alessandro Tondelli. 2021. "Resistance of European Spring 2-Row Barley Cultivars to Pyrenophora graminea and Detection of Associated Loci" Agronomy 11, no. 2: 374. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11020374
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
