Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T06:13:36.923Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Molecular fingerprinting of highly resistant maize lines to turcicum leaf blight

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 September 2024

Dan Singh Jakhar*
Affiliation:
Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi 221 005, Uttar Pradesh, India College of Agriculture, Agriculture University Jodhpur, Sumerpur (Pali) 306 902, Rajasthan, India
Rajesh Singh
Affiliation:
Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi 221 005, Uttar Pradesh, India
Shravan Kumar Singh
Affiliation:
Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi 221 005, Uttar Pradesh, India
*
Corresponding author: Dan Singh Jakhar; Email: dansingh410@gmail.com
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The present study generates information related to the molecular divergence between turcicum leaf blight (TLB)-resistant and -susceptible lines. During molecular diversity studies, a total of 212 alleles were detected at 75 marker loci and ranged from two to five with an average of 2.83 alleles per locus. A direct correlation for the number of alleles and polymorphism information content (PIC) values was ascertained. For instance, marker phi123 produced high number of alleles (5) with PIC values of 0.77. Using the DARwin 6.0 programme, the UPGMA dendrogram grouped 40 maize inbreds into two distinct clusters, cluster-I (36 inbreds) and cluster-II (4 inbreds). Cluster-I contained two subclusters; the first subcluster contained 28 inbreds and the second subcluster contained eight inbreds whereas cluster-II contained four inbreds. This major cluster-II was further classified into two subclusters which contained two inbreds each. Most of the inbred lines except V-25 from cluster-II were highly resistant to TLB disease. These inbred lines can be used in crossing programmes to develop TLB-resistant hybrids by using divergent parents. In this study, allelic diversity and PIC values indicated a good efficiency of markers for studying the polymorphism level available in studied inbred lines. High level of diversity among the inbreds detected with simple sequence repeat markers indicated their suitability for the further breeding programme.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of National Institute of Agricultural Botany

Introduction

Turcicum leaf blight (TLB), a significant foliar disease caused by Exserohilum turcicum (Pass.), can significantly reduce the yield of maize (Zea mays L.), the third-most important grain crop in the world (Leonard and Suggs, Reference Leonard and Suggs1974; Jakhar et al., Reference Jakhar, Singh, Devesh, Kumar, Singh and Srivastava2022). Grain yield can be reduced up to 80% when TLB becomes severe (Tefferi et al., Reference Tefferi, Hulluka and Welz1996). Long, elliptical, brown or greyish green leaf lesions that begin on the lower leaves and eventually spread throughout the foliage are the characteristic features of the disease. Blighted leaves die too soon if the disease is not treated in early stages (Jakhar et al., Reference Jakhar, Singh, Kumar, Singh and Ojha2017; Keerthana et al., Reference Keerthana, Haritha, Sudhir Kumar and Ramesh2023). Therefore, planting resistant cultivars is a widely accepted strategy that can reduce the rate at which diseases emerge (Keerthana et al., Reference Keerthana, Haritha, Sudhir Kumar and Ramesh2023). Disease resistance is classified as either qualitative or quantitative. Qualitative disease resistance is exclusive to a certain race, but quantitative or polygenic disease resistance is typically non-specific to a particular race and is more common in the Indian subcontinent (St. Clair, Reference St Clair2010). The initial study on E. turcicum in several Indian races was carried out by Payak and Sharma (Reference Payak and Sharma1985). Gowda et al. (Reference Gowda, Shetty, Gowda, Prakash and Sangam1993) found the four maize differentials, A-503HtN, H-4460Ht, H-4460Ht2 and H-4460Ht3, that include the numerous Ht resistance genes (Ht for Helminthosporium turcicum). A longer incubation period and fewer, usually smaller disease lesions are characteristics of quantitative TLB resistance, which is durable (Brewster et al., Reference Brewster, Carson and Wicks1992; Smith and Kinsey, Reference Smith and Kinsey1993; Abebe et al., Reference Abebe, Singburaudom, Sangchote and Sarobol2008; Gulzar et al., Reference Gulzar, Dar, Ahangar, Lone, Bhat, Kamal-ud-din, Khan, Sofi, Yousuf, Yousuf and Majid2018). Jakhar et al. (Reference Jakhar, Singh, Singh and Srivastava2021) screened 40 maize inbreds for the TLB resistance in Varanasi and Nagenahalli under artificially inoculated field conditions and observed that 10 inbreds viz., HKI-586, HUZM-53, CM-145, V-336, V-338, HKI-PC-8, HUZM-47, CM-104, CM-105 and CML-192 were resistant for the TLB disease. Similarly, Alemayehu et al. (Reference Alemayehu, Tajudin and Bayoush2018) also evaluated the disease reaction of maize lines against common leaf rust and TLB under field conditions with artificial inoculation. The development of resistance against TLB disease will have a significant effect on the maize breeding programmes.

The presence of distinct genetic groups among maize inbreds is characterized to increase gene diversity that is helpful in optimizing hybrid vigour. Using molecular markers to create diversity among maize inbred lines is a valuable tool (Singh and Srivastava, Reference Singh and Srivastava2017). Because it is highly polymorphic, repeatable and co-dominant in nature, the microsatellite marker is determined to be the most appropriate molecular marker among the many classes for screening TLB resistance (De Loose and Gheysen, Reference De Loose and Gheysen1995; Singh and Srivastava, Reference Singh and Srivastava2017; Keerthana et al., Reference Keerthana, Haritha, Sudhir Kumar and Ramesh2023). The microsatellite markers are useful in characterizing maize inbreds and in establishing distinct clusters based on genetic diversity and also useful in maize breeding programmes (Nikolic et al., Reference Nikolic, Ignjatovic-Micic, Kovacevic, Camdzija, Filipovic and Mladenovic-Drinic2015). Likewise, based on UPGMA clustering method, the inbred lines were categorized into various clusters and cluster A was solitary, and the inbred line VL171488-2 exhibited a resistant reaction against leaf blight (Keerthana et al., Reference Keerthana, Haritha, Sudhir Kumar and Ramesh2023). The simple sequence repeat (SSR) markers will allow detection of polymorphisms at the DNA level which will make it easier to distinguish among inbreds. Keerthana et al. (Reference Keerthana, Haritha, Sudhir Kumar and Ramesh2023) reported 26 SSR markers for the assessment of molecular diversity in maize inbred lines for resistance to TLB. Additionally, microsatellite markers have been used by many earlier researchers to analyse the quantitative traits, i.e. TLB resistance and to identify the quantitative trait loci (QTLs) for TLB resistance in maize (Jakhar et al., Reference Jakhar, Singh, Devesh, Kumar, Singh and Srivastava2022, Reference Jakhar, Singh and Singh2024). QTLs identification helps in marker-assisted selection process for improving genetic traits in crop plants (Singh and Srivastava, Reference Singh and Srivastava2017). SSR marker system could be used to evaluate TLB-resistant lines because they have a distinct molecular fingerprint compared to susceptible lines. Therefore, the present study was planned to study molecular diversity to identify polymorphic SSR markers for TLB resistance.

Materials and methods

Plant materials and layout

A set of 40 inbred lines including checks (V-336 and CM-145 as resistant check, and CM-212 as susceptible check) were obtained from DMR, New Delhi; VPKAS, Almora and Maize programme, BHU, Varanasi subjected to molecular divergence in maize (Table 1). A study on molecular characterization was carried out in Kharif 2015 at the Agricultural Research Farm, Institute of Agricultural Sciences, BHU, Varanasi (located at 25.18°N latitude, 83.03°E longitude and 123.23 m above sea level) using randomized block design with two replications. Each genotype consists of two rows spaced 70 cm apart and 25 cm between plants. Adopting recommended agronomic practices helped to produce a good crop (Mallikarjuna et al., Reference Mallikarjuna, Puttaramanaik, Kumar, Raveendra HR and Kumar2018). Additionally, at the same time, an investigation was carried out in 2015 to examine TLB reactions with a pure culture of E. turcicum in maize under artificial inoculation conditions at two different locations: Nagenahalli, Karnataka, and Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh (Jakhar et al., Reference Jakhar, Singh, Singh and Srivastava2021).

Table 1. List of 40 maize inbreds used in this study and their pedigree/source germplasm details, major characteristics along with TLB disease reaction

HR, highly resistant; R, resistant; PR, partial resistant; PS, partial susceptible; S, susceptible; HS, highly susceptible.

DNA extraction and quantification

Total genomic DNA was isolated from 100 mg (21–24 days old) healthy leaf samples collected from individual plants of each inbred lines and stored in a deep freezer at −80°C. The DNA extraction was carried out by using the CTAB procedure described by Saghai-Maroof et al. (Reference Saghai-Maroof, Soliman, Jorgensen and Allard1984).

SSR marker assay

In the present study, a set of 75 SSR markers (Table 2) were evaluated for 40 maize inbred lines. These SSR markers were received from Applied Biotechnology Centre, CIMMYT, Mexico and the Asian Maize Biotechnology Network (AMBIONET). The primer details for the selected microsatellite markers were retrieved from the maizeGDB (Maize Genetics and Genomics Database) and are publicly accessible (https://www.maizegdb.org/).

Table 2. List of microsatellite markers used for molecular divergence among TLB-resistant and -susceptible lines of maize

SSR fragment analysis

The polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplicons of SSR markers were electrophoretically fractionated on a 2.5% agarose gel that was stained with ethidium bromide in 1x TAE buffer. The PCR amplicons were visualized under UV light and photographed using Alpha imager gel documentation system. The 100 bp DNA ladder was used as a molecular weight marker for the analysis of SSR. The distinct PCR amplified products were scored as ‘1’ for the presence and ‘0’ for the absence of DNA bands for each SSR marker genotype combination (Anderson et al., Reference Anderson, Churchill, Sutrique, Tanksley and Sorrells1993).

Data analysis

The informativeness of SSR markers in terms of polymorphism was determined by calculating polymorphic information content (PIC) for each SSR marker loci according to the formula (Anderson et al., Reference Anderson, Churchill, Sutrique, Tanksley and Sorrells1993):

$${\rm PI}{\rm C}_i = 1-\sum {\,p_{ij}^2 } $$

where pij is the frequency of the jth microsatellite allele for locus i.

The DNA data of microsatellite primers for maize inbred lines were clustered by using the UPGMA with the module of DARwin 6.0 software. The principal coordinate analysis (PCoA) was estimated to depict the diverse origin of the genotypes by using DARwin 6.0 software (Perrier et al., Reference Perrier, Flori, Bonnot, Hamon, Seguin, Perrier and Glaszmann2003).

Results

Allelic diversity and PIC value

A survey of the molecular profiles generated by the evaluation of amplified products clearly indicated that altogether 212 alleles were detected with an average of 2.83 alleles per markers. Allelic diversity was observed with the number of alleles ranged from two to five. In this study, a direct correlation for the number of alleles and polymorphism information content (PIC) values was observed. For instance, marker phi123 produced high number of alleles (5) with PIC values of 0.77. Similarly other markers such as bnlg1812, umc1097, umc1027, dupssr1, umc1042, bnlg1136, bnlg1043, umc1051, bnlg1885, nc005, phi112, bnlg1138, bnlg1331 and bnlg1396 which also produced higher number of alleles (4) also exhibited high PIC values viz., 0.78, 0.80, 0.72, 0.73, 0.73, 0.74, 0.74, 0.73, 0.74, 0.75, 0.74, 0.75, 0.75 and 0.75, respectively (Table 3 and Fig. 1). Furthermore, SSR loci with tetra-nucleotide sequence motifs detected a greater number of alleles than the repeated loci with di-nucleotide, tri-nucleotide and complex sequence motifs.

Table 3. Allelic distributions and PIC values of 75 microsatellite markers among 40 TLB-resistant and -susceptible lines

Figure 1. Radar chart for allelic distributions and PIC values of 75 microsatellite markers.

Genetic relationship among diverse genotypes

The DARwin 6.0 software was used to prepare an UPGMA dendrogram. The genetic distance was used to prepare the UPGMA dendrogram to group 40 maize inbred lines into two major clusters (cluster-I and cluster-II). Cluster-I contained two subclusters, the first subcluster contained 28 genotypes and the second contained eight genotypes whereas cluster-II contained four inbreds. Most of the inbreds except V-25 from cluster-II were highly resistant to TLB disease. This major cluster-II was further classified into two subclusters which contained two genotypes each (Fig. 2).

Figure 2. Dendrogram indicating genetic relationship among 40 maize inbred lines generated by using UPGMA method.

The PCoA revealed that the 40 maize inbred lines were dispersed into four quadrangles and signifying complex genetic relationship among themselves (Fig. 3). The results of the PCoA supported the UPGMA dendrogram's clustering pattern and nearly coincided with the findings of the cluster analysis.

Figure 3. Principal coordinate analysis (PCoA) among 40 maize inbreds using 75 SSR markers.

Discussion

The UPGMA dendrogram grouped 40 maize inbreds into two major clusters (cluster-I and cluster-II). Cluster-I contained two subclusters, the first subcluster contained 28 genotypes and the second contained eight genotypes whereas cluster II contained 4 inbreds. This major cluster II was further classified into two subclusters which contained two genotypes each. Therefore, TLB-resistant maize inbreds were unambiguously differentiated from susceptible and partially resistant maize inbred lines.

The 75 microsatellite marker loci differed in their ability to determine the variability among 40 TLB-resistant and -susceptible lines of maize based on their genetic polymorphism. The value of PIC of a marker reflects primer specific gene diversity, and frequency among the inbreds. The higher value of PIC of a SSR marker indicated a higher number of alleles among inbreds (Kumari et al., Reference Kumari, Kumar, Sharma and Kumar2018). A sum total of 212 alleles were found at 75 SSR loci with a mean of 2.83 alleles per SSR locus. The number of alleles ranged from two to five with an average of 2.83 alleles per markers. The average number of alleles in the present study is comparable with earlier genetic diversity analysis (Jaya Kumar, Reference Jaya Kumar2010), who reported 2–8 alleles per marker. Similar studies have also been conducted in maize (Yuan et al., Reference Yuan, Fu, Warburton, Li, Zhang, Khairallah, Liu, Peng and Li2000; Prasanna and Hoisington, Reference Prasanna and Hoisington2003; Choukan et al., Reference Choukan, Hossainzadeh, Ghannadha, Warburton, Talei and Mohammadi2006).

In this study, a positive correlation for the number of alleles and PIC values was found. For instance, marker phi123 produced high number of alleles (5) with PIC values of 0.77. Furthermore, SSR loci with tetra-nucleotide sequence motifs found a maximum number of alleles than the repeated loci with di-nucleotide, tri-nucleotide and complex sequence motifs in the present investigation. Generally, the di-nucleotide repeat motifs were found to be more polymorphic than those with tri-nucleotide, tetra-nucleotide and complex repeat motifs (Lapitan et al., Reference Lapitan, Brar, Abe and Redona2007; Kumar et al., Reference Kumar, Kumari and Sharma2018; Kumari et al., Reference Kumari, Kumar, Sharma and Kumar2018). The importance of SSR markers for the assessment of genetic diversity has been reported by earlier workers (Li et al., Reference Li, Du, Wang, Shi, Song and Jia2002; Xia et al., Reference Xia, Reif, Hoisington, Melchinger, Frish and Warburton2004; Yu et al., Reference Yu, Wang, Shi, Song, Wang and Li2007; Reid et al., Reference Reid, Xiang, Zhu, Baum and Molnar2011; Haasbroek et al., Reference Haasbroek, Craven, Barnes and Crampton2014) by using maize genotypes.

In the present investigation, 75 SSR markers revealed sufficiently high sensitivity for detecting DNA polymorphism among the 40 maize inbreds. The dendrogram revealed the genotypic relationship among each other to explore their utility for further studies.

The PCoA showed that the distributions of 40 maize inbreds in the four quadrangles were highly dispersed, signifying complex genetic relationship among themselves. In the present study, the results of PCoA also illustrated the diverse nature of the maize inbreds and agreed well with their cluster analysis pattern. The diverse nature of the maize inbreds has already been proven to be a good source for the development of superior heterotic hybrids by Solomon et al. (Reference Solomon, Martin and Zeppa2012), Babic et al. (Reference Babic, Srdic, Pajic, Grcic and Filipovic2014) and Mehta et al. (Reference Mehta, Hossain, Muthusamy, Baveja, Zunjare, Jha and Gupta2017). Further investigations are required to evaluate whether the discrimination between resistant and susceptible genotypes is consistent for other isolates of E. turcicum and during natural infection in different environmental conditions in multiple years.

Conclusions

In the present investigation, 75 microsatellite markers were used for the assessment of molecular divergence among 40 TLB-resistant and -susceptible lines of maize. Among these SSR markers, Phi123 produced a large number of alleles (5) with PIC values of 0.77. Similarly, other markers that produced a greater number of alleles, such as bnlg1812, umc1097, umc1027, dupssr1, umc1042, bnlg1136, bnlg1043, umc1051, bnlg1885, nc005, phi112, bnlg1138, bnlg1331 and bnlg1396, also showed a high PIC value. Furthermore, these markers observed a significant amount of variation in the resistant genotypes indicating their usefulness. In this study, most of the inbred lines from cluster-II were highly resistant to TLB disease. These TLB-resistant lines can be used as the divergent parents to develop TLB-resistant hybrids. Allelic diversity and PIC values in this investigation showed that the markers used were effective in determining the polymorphism level found in the studied inbred lines. Furthermore, the notable level of divergence detected by SSR markers can be used in crossing programmes to develop TLB-resistant hybrids. The findings of this study can also be used to design efficient breeding programmes for resistance to TLB.

Supplementary material

The supplementary material for this article can be found at https://doi.org/10.1017/S1479262124000315

Acknowledgements

The Institute of Agricultural Sciences at Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi is acknowledged by the authors for making this research possible. We would also like to thank the University Grants Commission (UGC), New Delhi for providing a research fellowship that allowed us to complete this study.

References

Abebe, D, Singburaudom, N, Sangchote, S and Sarobol, E (2008) Evaluation of maize varieties for resistance to northern leaf blight under field conditions in Ethiopia. Kasetsart Journal Natural Science 42, 110.Google Scholar
Alemayehu, H, Tajudin, A and Bayoush, B (2018) Screening of maize inbred lines under artificial epiphytotic condition for their reaction to turcicum leaf blight (TLB) and common leaf rust (CLR). Agricultural Research & Technology: Open Access Journal 19, 556080.Google Scholar
Anderson, JA, Churchill, GA, Sutrique, JE, Tanksley, SD and Sorrells, ME (1993) Optimizing parental selection for genetic linkage maps. Genome 36, 181186.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Babic, V, Srdic, J, Pajic, Z, Grcic, N and Filipovic, M (2014) The prediction of heterosis based on the phenotypic distance of sweet maize parental lines. Ratarstvo i Povrtarstvo 51, 2328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brewster, VA, Carson, ML and Wicks, ZW III (1992) Mapping components of partial resistance to northern leaf blight of maize using reciprocal translocation. Phytopathology 82, 225229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Choukan, R, Hossainzadeh, A, Ghannadha, MR, Warburton, ML, Talei, AR and Mohammadi, SA (2006) Use of SSR data to determine relationships and potential heterotic groupings within medium to late maturing Iranian maize inbred lines. Field Crops Research 95, 212222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Loose, M and Gheysen, G (1995) Identification methods based on molecular techniques. International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants. Working group on biochemical and molecular techniques and DNA-profiling in particular, Wageningen, Netherland.Google Scholar
Gowda, PKT, Shetty, HS, Gowda, BJ, Prakash, HS and Sangam, L (1993) Comparison of two methods for assessment of yield losses due to turcicum leaf blight of maize. Indian Phytopathology 45, 316320.Google Scholar
Gulzar, S, Dar, ZA, Ahangar, MA, Lone, AA, Bhat, MA, Kamal-ud-din, , Khan, MA, Sofi, PA, Yousuf, V, Yousuf, N and Majid, A (2018) Identification of reaction pattern to turcicum leaf blight among early maturing maize (Zea mays L.) inbred lines. Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry 7, 16571660.Google Scholar
Haasbroek, MP, Craven, M, Barnes, I and Crampton, BG (2014) Microsatellite and mating type primers for the maize and sorghum pathogen, Exserohilum turcicum. Australasian Plant Pathology 43, 577581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jakhar, DS, Singh, R, Kumar, S, Singh, P and Ojha, V (2017) Turcicum leaf blight: a ubiquitous foliar disease of maize (Zea mays L.). International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences 6, 825831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jakhar, DS, Singh, R, Singh, SK and Srivastava, RP (2021) Screening of maize inbred lines under artificial epiphytotic condition for turcicum leaf blight resistance. Current Journal of Applied Science and Technology 40, 914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jakhar, DS, Singh, R, Devesh, P, Kumar, S, Singh, A and Srivastava, RP (2022) Mapping of quantitative trait loci for resistance to turcicum leaf blight in maize (Zea mays L.). Emirates Journal of Food and Agriculture 34, 260267.Google Scholar
Jakhar, DS, Singh, R and Singh, SK (2024) Mapping of QTL conferring resistance to turcicum leaf blight using microsatellites in maize (Zea mays L.). Maydica 67, 112.Google Scholar
Jaya Kumar, T (2010) Detection of polymorphism in parental genotypes of selected mapping populations in groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) (M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis). Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore.Google Scholar
Keerthana, D, Haritha, T, Sudhir Kumar, I and Ramesh, D (2023) Molecular diversity in maize inbred lines for turcicum leaf blight resistance. Plant Science Today 10, 385392.Google Scholar
Kumar, P, Kumari, R and Sharma, VK (2018) Choice of microsatellite markers for isolation of fertility restorers of wild abortive (WA) type cytoplasmic male sterility in rice. Indian Journal of Genetics and Plant Breeding 78, 202210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kumari, R, Kumar, P, Sharma, VK and Kumar, H (2018) Seedling stage salt stress response specific characterization of genetic polymorphism and validation of SSR markers in rice. Physiology and Molecular Biology of Plants 25, 407419.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lapitan, VC, Brar, DS, Abe, T and Redona, ED (2007) Assessment of genetic diversity of Philippine rice cultivars carrying good quality traits using SSR markers. Breeding Science 57, 263270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leonard, KJ and Suggs, EG (1974) Setosphaeria prolata is the ascogenous state of Exserohilum prolata. Mycologia 66, 181297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, Y, Du, J, Wang, T, Shi, Y, Song, Y and Jia, J (2002) Genetic diversity and relationships among Chinese maize inbred lines revealed by SSR markers. Maydica 47, 93101.Google Scholar
Mallikarjuna, N, Puttaramanaik, N, Kumar, K, Raveendra HR, and Kumar, VBS (2018) Evaluation of maize germplasm for resistance to turcicum leaf blight. Indian Journal of Pure & Applied Biosciences 6, 16011605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mehta, B, Hossain, F, Muthusamy, V, Baveja, A, Zunjare, R, Jha, SK and Gupta, HS (2017) Microsatellite-based genetic diversity analyses of sugary1-, shrunken2- and double mutant-sweet corn inbreds for their utilization in breeding programme. Physiology and Molecular Biology of Plants 23, 411420.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nikolic, A, Ignjatovic-Micic, D, Kovacevic, D, Camdzija, Z, Filipovic, M and Mladenovic-Drinic, S (2015) Genetic diversity of maize inbred lines as inferred from SSR markers. Genetika 47, 489498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payak, MM and Sharma, RC (1985) Maize diseases and approaches to their management. Tropical Pest Management 31, 302310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perrier, X, Flori, A and Bonnot, F (2003) Data analysis methods. In Hamon, P, Seguin, M, Perrier, X and Glaszmann, JC (eds), Genetic Diversity of Cultivated Tropical Plants. Enfield, USA: Science Publishers, pp. 4376.Google Scholar
Prasanna, BM and Hoisington, D (2003) Molecular breeding for maize improvement: an overview. Indian Journal of Biotechnology 2, 8598.Google Scholar
Reid, LM, Xiang, K, Zhu, X, Baum, R and Molnar, SJ (2011) Genetic diversity analysis of 119 Canadian maize inbred lines based on pedigree and simple sequence repeat markers. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 91, 651661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saghai-Maroof, MA, Soliman, KM, Jorgensen, RA and Allard, RWL (1984) Ribosomal DNA spacer-length polymorphisms in barley: Mendelian inheritance, chromosomal location, and population dynamics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 81, 80148018.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Singh, R and Srivastava, RP (2017) New quantitative trait loci (QTLs) for turcicum leaf blight in maize. Journal of Biotechnology and Crop Sciences 6, 4452.Google Scholar
Smith, DR and Kinsey, JG (1993) Latent period – a possible selection tool for Exserohilum turcicum resistance in corn. Maydica 38, 205208.Google Scholar
Solomon, KF, Martin, I and Zeppa, A (2012) Genetic effects and genetic relationships among shrunken (sh2) sweet corn lines and F1 hybrids. Euphytica 185, 385394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
St Clair, DA (2010) Quantitative disease resistance and quantitative resistance loci in breeding. Annual Review of Phytopathology 48, 247268.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tefferi, A, Hulluka, M and Welz, HG (1996) Assessment of damage and grain yield loss in maize caused by northern corn leaf blight in western Ethiopia. Journal of Plant Diseases and Protection 103, 353363.Google Scholar
Xia, XC, Reif, CJ, Hoisington, DA, Melchinger, AE, Frish, M and Warburton, ML (2004) Genetic diversity among CIMMYT maize inbred lines investigated with SSR markers: I Lowland tropical maize. Crop Science 44, 22302237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yu, Y, Wang, E, Shi, Y, Song, Y, Wang, T and Li, Y (2007) Genetic diversity and structure of the core collection for maize inbred in China. Maydica 52, 181194.Google Scholar
Yuan, LX, Fu, JH, Warburton, M, Li, XH, Zhang, SH, Khairallah, M, Liu, XZ, Peng, Z and Li, LC (2000) Comparison of genetic diversity among maize inbred lines based on RFLPs, SSRs, AFLPs and RAPDs. Acta Agronomica Sinica 27, 725733.Google ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Table 1. List of 40 maize inbreds used in this study and their pedigree/source germplasm details, major characteristics along with TLB disease reaction

Figure 1

Table 2. List of microsatellite markers used for molecular divergence among TLB-resistant and -susceptible lines of maize

Figure 2

Table 3. Allelic distributions and PIC values of 75 microsatellite markers among 40 TLB-resistant and -susceptible lines

Figure 3

Figure 1. Radar chart for allelic distributions and PIC values of 75 microsatellite markers.

Figure 4

Figure 2. Dendrogram indicating genetic relationship among 40 maize inbred lines generated by using UPGMA method.

Figure 5

Figure 3. Principal coordinate analysis (PCoA) among 40 maize inbreds using 75 SSR markers.

Supplementary material: File

Jakhar et al. supplementary material

Jakhar et al. supplementary material
Download Jakhar et al. supplementary material(File)
File 17 KB