1996
DOI: 10.4141/cjps96-148
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Linked morphological and molecular markers associated with common root rot reaction in barley

Abstract: Selection of common root rot [Cochliobolus sativus (Ito & Kurib.) Drechsl. ex Dastur] resistant barley germplasm is difficult due to the influence of environment on disease expression and the quantitative nature of resistance. Morphological and molecular markers associated with common root rot resistance could be used to increase the efficiency of selection of resistant germplasm and facilitate transfer to desirable barley genotypes Forty-five morphological marker sets consisting of four to six backcross-d… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
10
0

Year Published

2000
2000
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
1
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
0
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Rob1 was initially used in inheritance studies and considered to be monofactorial recessive following Mendel with a 3:1 ratio [79,120]. The mutation is located on chromosome 6 near the male-sterile 36 locus and the uniculm 2 locus [121] and used as a morphological markers [122][123][124]. With regards to chemical analysis, one published poster presents the results of rob1 forage quality, however no differences have been identified between the mutant and the elite cultivars [117], despite measurement of lignin content being 10-15% lower in rob1 mutants of different backgrounds, as well as altered lignin composition with decreased S:G ratio and increased saccharification efficiency compared to wild type [116,118].…”
Section: Rob1mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Rob1 was initially used in inheritance studies and considered to be monofactorial recessive following Mendel with a 3:1 ratio [79,120]. The mutation is located on chromosome 6 near the male-sterile 36 locus and the uniculm 2 locus [121] and used as a morphological markers [122][123][124]. With regards to chemical analysis, one published poster presents the results of rob1 forage quality, however no differences have been identified between the mutant and the elite cultivars [117], despite measurement of lignin content being 10-15% lower in rob1 mutants of different backgrounds, as well as altered lignin composition with decreased S:G ratio and increased saccharification efficiency compared to wild type [116,118].…”
Section: Rob1mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It has been a subject of numerous studies for several years (Chawla and Wenzel 1987, Kutcher et al 1996, Conner et al 1996, Ptazek and Filek 1998. under influence of Bipolaris sorokiniana metabolites were estimated.…”
Section: A P~azek and E Niemczykmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Previous studies have described the significance of plant hormones in metabolic and signaling aspects and their probable role in the maintenance and release of dormancy in seeds of cereal crops [43,119,120]. Among plant growth hormones, abscisic acid (ABA) and gibberellin (GA) play important roles in regulation of dormancy and germination, ABA induces dormancy and GA stimulates seed germination [121,122]. A change in balance between ABA and GA levels in seed constitutes a regulatory mechanism that results in maintenance or release of seed dormancy [120,123].…”
Section: Plant Growth Hormonesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Transgene-free methods rely on the possibility to transiently express SDNs in plant cells (e.g., protoplasts), and this can be achieved either by the transfer of a DNA-based expression cassette that does not undergo stable integration in the genome [122][123][124], or alternatively by the transfer of ribonucleoproteins (RNPs) [125,126]. The use of transgene-free methods can lead to genome-edited plants (SDN1 and SDN2 on case-by-case), which are indistinguishable by spontaneously mutated crops or mutants obtained by classical mutagenesis approaches (i.e., ethyl methanesulfonate, ionizing radiation) [115].…”
Section: Genome Editingmentioning
confidence: 99%