A
novel RAPD marker linked to the
Fusarium
wilt race 5 resistance gene (Fwf) in Pisum sativum
Okubara,
P.A.
USDA-ARS, Root Disease and Biological Control, Pullman, WA
Inglis,
D.A.
WSU Research and Extension Unit, Mount Vernon, WA
Muehlbauer,
F.J.
USDA-ARS, Grain Legume Genetics and Physiology, Pullman, WA
Coyne,
C.J.
USDA-ARS, Plant Introduction, Pullman, WA
Introduction
Fusarium
wilt (Fw) is a significant problem in pea-growing regions throughout the world.
The causal agent, F. oxysporum Schlecht. emend. f. sp. pisi (van
Hall) Snyd. & Hans., is a soil-borne fungus that enters the host vascular
system at root tips or through wounds, causing progressive chlorosis of the
leaves and stems, wilting, and collapse of the root system (4, 6). Fusarium wilt
race 5 (Fwf) is well-adapted to environmental conditions in the northwestern
United States. It has caused serious economic losses to the pea industry in the
Pacific Northwest since the late 1960s (7) and has posed problems in the
pea-growing regions of British Columbia (6). Fw race 5 is distinguished from
races 1, 2 and 6 on the basis of host genotype interactions (10). These races
also differ in vegetative compatibility (4) and molecular fingerprint profiles
(9). New variants of the pathogen continue to emerge (2, 8), indicating that F.
oxysporum f. sp. pisi is a dynamically evolving pathogen.
Breeding
for resistance is an effective means of controlling Fw. Several mechanisms of Fw
resistance have been proposed (9) including the formation of physical barriers
in the xylem of resistant cultivars (3). The Fwf resistance gene confers
complete and specific resistance to the race 5 isolate. Fwf segregates as
a single, dominant trait (3) and has been assigned to Linkage Group II following
an initial mapping of three morphological markers and four polymorphic isozymes
(5). Here, we examine sixty random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) primers for
polymorphisms linked to Fwf. One of these, U693a, delineates a 5.6 cM
interval adjacent to Fwf. Such a marker can be used to develop
locus-specific PCR primers that will facilitate marker assisted selection.
Materials
and Methods
Fifty-three
F7-derived RILs obtained from a cross of 74SN3B (Fwf)
x A83-22-4(e)-A, resistance phenotyping, and initial mapping of
Fwf were described previously (5). Bulk segregant analysis with pooled
resistant and susceptible individuals (13) was used to identify RAPD polymorphic
markers linked to Fwf. PCR amplifications were carried out according to
Williams et al. (19). To generate locus-specific primers for U693a, the 450 bp
U693a RAPD product was amplified from genomic DNA of 74SN3B, partitioned on an
agarose gel, and purified using the Concert Rapid Gel Extraction System (Gibco/Invitrogen,
Carlsbad, CA). The fragment was cloned into pCR4-TOPO vector (Invitrogen,
Carlsbad, CA) and mobilized into chemically competent TOP10 E. coli cells
(17). Plasmid DNA was purified using a QIAprep Spin Miniprep kit (Qiagen, Inc.,
Valencia, CA).
Linkage analysis was done using MAPMAKER/EXP 3.0, Whitehead Institute, Cambridge, MA (12).
Results
and Discussion
Fig. 1. Genetic map of the Fwf region in Pisum sativum.
Table 1.
PCR primers used to generate the Fwf linkage map.
|
|
|
|
|
Locus |
Description |
Primer |
Product
(bp) |
Source |
|
|
|
|
|
U109 |
UBC
RAPD |
TGTACGTGAC |
0800 |
University
of British Columbia |
U693a |
UBC
RAPD |
GACGAGACGG |
0450 |
University
of British Columbia |
U693b |
UBC
RAPD |
GACGAGACGG |
0400 |
University
of British Columbia |
T3_650 |
RAPD |
TCCACTCCTG |
0650 |
Operon,
Inc., Alameda, CA |
V20_1100 |
RAPD |
CAGCATGGTC |
1100 |
Operon,
Inc., Alameda, CA |
To relate our linkage map to that
of other P. sativum maps (16), we examined the segregation of two
additional RAPD loci, T3_650 and V20_1100. The former marker was polymorphic in
two of six populations reported by Rameau et al.; the latter marker segregated
in five populations and was linked to rms3, a ramosus locus for
apical dominance that is adjacent to Aatp in line K564. In our parental
lines T3_650 was polymorphic and mapped 5.8 cM from U693a, distal to Fwf
(Fig. 1). V20_1100 was not polymorphic in our mapping population (data not shown).
The
nucleotide sequence of the U693a RAPD clone encodes a partial 148-amino acid
open reading frame having similarity (E value = 5e-28; 1) to
polyproteins of copia-like retrotransposable elements. Copia-like
elements are ubiquitous and occur in the genomes of legumes, including Pisum
(15), Cicer (18) and Cajanus cajan L. (11). Specific sequences
within these elements have been used to examine genetic diversity at the species
level. It is not known whether the putative U693a pol sequence in 74SN3B
represents a functional retrotransposon.
Both
sets of U693a SCAR primers generated a ~400 bp fragment and conferred specific
amplification of the U693a locus. However, the SCAR fragment was amplified from
DNA of all the lines, including the susceptible parent, at various annealing
temperatures. It is unlikely that the primers were derived from a contaminating
PCR product, because line 74SN3B used to generate the U693a clone showed no
additional fragments within the ~400 bp size range (Fig. 2). We conclude that
the polymorphism obtained with the RAPD-based method reflects the competition by
which the decameric primers anneal to and amplify high-complexity target DNA.
Acknowledgments:
This work was supported by the Northwest Agriculture Research Foundation,
the CSREES Special Grant Program for Cool Season Food Legumes, and ARS CRIS
projects 5348-21000-017-00D (C.J.C.) and 5248-22000-008-00D (P.A.O.).
1. Altschul, S.F.,
Madden, T.L., Schaffer, A.A., Zhang, J., Zhang, Z., Miller, W., and Lipman, D. J.
1997.
Nucl. Acids Res. 25: 3389-3402.
2. Bødker, L., Lewis,
B.G. and Coddington, A. 1993. Plant Pathol. 42: 833-838.
3. Charchar, M. and
Kraft, J.M. 1989.
Can. J. Plant Sci. 69: 1335-1346.
4. Correll, J.C. 1991. Phytopathology
81: 1061-1064.
5. Coyne, C.J, Inglis,
D.A., Whitehead, S.J., McClendon, M.T. and Muehlbauer, F.J.
2000. Pisum Genet. 32:
20-22.
6. Haglund, W.A. 2001. Compendium
of Pea Diseases, 2nd ed., American Phytopathological Society, St.
Paul, MN. pp. 14-16.
7. Haglund, W.A. and
Kraft, J.M. 1970.
Phytopath. 60: 1861-1862.
8. Haglund, W.A. and
Kraft, J.M. 1979.
Phytopath. 69: 818-820.
9. Kraft, J.M.
1994. Agronomie 14: 561-567.
10. Kraft, J.M. and Haglund, W.A.
1978. Phytopath. 68:
273-275.
11. Lall, I.P.S., Maneesha and Upadhyaya, K.C.
2002. Mol. Genet. Genom.
267: 271-280.
12
Lander, E., Green, P., Abrahamson, J., Barlow, A., Daly, M., Lincoln, S.
and Newburg, L. 1987. Genomics 1: 174-181.
13. Michelmore, R.W., Paran, I. and Kesseli, R.V.
1991. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
USA 88: 9828-9832.
14. Paran, I. and Michelmore, R.W.
1993. Theor. Appl. Genet.
85: 985-993.
15. Pearce, S.R., Knox, M., Ellis, T.H., Flavell, A.J. and
Kumar, A. 2000. Mol. Gen. Genet. 263: 898-907.
16.
Rameau, C., Dénoue D., Fraval, F., Haurogné, K., Josserand, C., Laucou,
V., Batge, S. and Murfet, I.C. 1998.
Theor. Appl. Genet. 97: 916-928.
17. Sambrook, J. and Russell, D.W.
2001. Molecular Cloning: A
Laboratory Manual. Cold Spring Harbor Press, Cold Spring Harbor, NY.
18. Sant, V.J., Sainani, M.N., Sami-Subbu, R., Ranjekar, P.K.
and Gupta, V.S. 2000.
Gene 257: 157-166.