Evaluation for Bacterial Blight Resistance in Beans

Zapata, Mildred; Freytag, George F.; Wilkinson, Robert

doi:10.1094/phyto-75-1032

Cited by 37 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Interspecific crosses between common and scarlet runner bean have been used to develop bean germplasm lines with a novel sources of resistance to BGYM , BGM (Bianchini 1999) and common bacterial blight (Freytag et al 1982;Miklas et al 1999;Zapata et al 1985).…”

Section: The Use Of Interspecific Crosses To Develop Cultivars and Immentioning

confidence: 99%

Achievements and limitations of contemporary common bean breeding using conventional and molecular approaches

Beaver

Osorno

2009

Euphytica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) improvement programs have been successful using conventional breeding methods to accomplish a wide array of important objectives. Specific achievements include the extension of range of adaptation of the crop, the development of cultivars with enhanced levels of disease and pest resistance and breeding lines that possess greater tolerance to drought. The most effective breeding method depends on the expression and inheritance of the trait to be selected and the target environment. Many bean improvement programs use molecular markers to facilitate cultivar development. In fact, several recent germplasm releases have used molecular markers to introgress and or pyramid major genes and QTL for disease resistance. Related species (P. coccineus and P. acultifolius) via interspecific hybridizations remain an important albeit long-term source for resistance to economically important diseases. Slow progress has been made in the improvement of traits such as adaptation to low soil fertility and tolerance to high levels of soluble Al in the soil using conventional breeding methods. The inability to directly measure root traits and the importance of genotype 9 environment interaction complicate the selection of these traits. In addition, symbiotic relationships with Rhizobium and mycorrhiza need to be taken into consideration when selecting for enhanced biological N fixation and greater or more efficient acquisition of soil P. Genomic examination of complex traits such as these should help bean breeders devise more effective selection strategies. As integration of genomics in plant breeding advances, the challenge will be to develop molecular tools that also benefit breeding programs in developing countries. Transgenic breeding methods for bean improvement are not well defined, nor efficient, as beans are recalcitrant to regeneration from cell cultures. Moreover, if issues related to consumer acceptance of GMOs cannot be resolved, traits such as herbicide tolerance in transgenic bean cultivars which would help farmers reduce production costs and decrease soil erosion will remain unrealized.

show abstract

Section: The Use Of Interspecific Crosses To Develop Cultivars and Immentioning

confidence: 99%

Achievements and limitations of contemporary common bean breeding using conventional and molecular approaches

Beaver

Osorno

2009

Euphytica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…phaseoli (Smith) Dye [X c p] is a serious problem affecting production in many parts of the world (Schwartz & Galvez, 1981 ; . The disease reaction of beans to X c p is affected by host genotype (Cafati & Saettler,1980 ;Coyne et al -, 1973 ;Schuster et al ., 1983), method of inoculation (Aggour, 1987 ;Arp et al ., 1971 ;Ekpo, 1975 ;Leyna & Coyne, 1985), bacterial strains (Aggour, 1987 ;Leyna & Coyne, 1985 ;Saettler & Ekpo, 1975 ;Schuster & Coyne, 1975 ;Schuster et al, 1983;Zapata et al ., 1985), inoculum concentration (Coyne et al ., 1973 ;Leyna & Coyne, 1985 ;Pompeu & Crowder, 1973), and environmental factors (Arnaud-Santana, 1985 ;Patel & Walker, 1963) . The multiple needle (Andrus, 1948 ;Pompeu & Crowder, 1973) and dissecting needle (Valladares-Sanchez et al ., 1979) techniques were reported as useful in evaluating bean plants in the greenhouse for leaf and pod reactions, respectively, to different strains of X _ c p .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of leaf and pod disease reactions of beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) inoculated by different methods with strains of Xanthomonas campestris pv. Phaseoli (Smith) dye

1989

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Freytag et al (1982) were the first to develop and register a common blight resistant breeding line XR-235-1-1 derived from P. vulgaris  P. coccineus interspecific cross. Zapata et al (1985) reported a group of F 6 and F 7 common blight resistant breeding lines including XR-235-1-1 that were derived from P. vulgaris  P. coccineus interspecific cross. Unger], and white mold.…”

Section: Breeding For Common Blight Resistance Traditional Methods Usimentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Phaseolus species of the secondary gene pool (e.g., P. coccineus L. accessions G 35066, G 35105, G 35157, PI 165421, PI 273667, PI 311950, and PI 311977) also possess intermediate levels (scores 4.9 to 6.7) of resistance (Freytag et al, 1982;Miklas et al, 1994;Mohan, 1982;Park and Dhanvantari, 1987;Schuster et al, 1983;Singh and Muñoz, 1999). But, the highest levels (scores 1.2 to 3.0) of resistance have been reported in the tertiary gene pool species such as P. acutifolius (e.g., G 40001, G 40020 synonym PI 319443, G 40029, PI 440795) (Drijf hout and Blok, 1987;Freytag, 1989;Michaels et al, 2006;Parker, 1985;Schuster et al, 1983;Singh and Muñoz, 1999;Urrea et al, 1999;Zapata et al, 1985). For additional sources of resistance (mostly in common bean and interspecific breeding lines derived from the secondary and tertiary geen pools), readers may refer to Arnaud-Santana et al Table 1 comprises some resistant common bean germplasm including landraces, introgressed breeding lines from the Xa11.4 QTL, which was detected in VAX 1 and VAX 3 on Pv11 but unlinked with a selectable marker, is presumed to be also present in VAX 4, VAX 5, and VAX 6.…”

Section: Sources Of Resistance To Common Blightmentioning

confidence: 99%

Breeding Common Bean for Resistance to Common Blight: A Review

Singh

Miklas²

2015

Crop Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

E fficiency and success of breeding common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L., both dry and green, garden, snap, or stringless bean) for resistance to common blight {caused by Xanthomonas campestris pv. phaseoli Smith (Dye) (synonym: X. axonopodis pv. phaseoli [Smith] Vauterin et al.) and X. campestris pv. phaseoli var. fuscans (Burkholder) Starr & Burkholder (synonym: X. fuscans subsp. fuscans sp. nov.)} (and other diseases, insect pests, abiotic stresses, and desirable traits) can be improved with thorough knowledge of the pathology and pathogenic variation in bacterial species causing the disease; sources of resistant germplasm in the primary, secondary, and tertiary gene pools of the common bean; germplasm screening methods; genetics of resistance; breeding strategies and methods used; progress made in breeding for resistance; and challenges and problems faced. Recently Singh and Schwartz (2010), among others, reviewed progress made in breeding common bean for resistance to diseases. Schwartz and Singh (2013) further reviewed breeding common bean for white mold [caused by Sclerotinia sclerotiorum (Lib.) de Bary] resistance. Within the past few years, substantial progress has been made in understanding pathogenic variation in bacterial species, identifying new common blight resistance QTL, and understanding the interaction between Abbreviations: MAS, marker-assisted selection; QTL, quantitative trait locus or loci; rep-PCR, repetitive element polymerase chain reaction. Published in Crop Sci. 55:971-984 (2015).

show abstract

Evaluation for Bacterial Blight Resistance in Beans

Cited by 37 publications

References 0 publications

Achievements and limitations of contemporary common bean breeding using conventional and molecular approaches

Achievements and limitations of contemporary common bean breeding using conventional and molecular approaches

Comparison of leaf and pod disease reactions of beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) inoculated by different methods with strains of Xanthomonas campestris pv. Phaseoli (Smith) dye

Breeding Common Bean for Resistance to Common Blight: A Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About