欢迎访问作物学报，今天是
作物学报

作物学报 ›› 2022, Vol. 48 ›› Issue (11): 2715-2723.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2022.12040

• 作物遗传育种·种质资源·分子遗传学 • 上一篇    下一篇

广西野生稻Y11抗白背飞虱QTL定位

杨明1(), 李丹婷2, 范德佳1, 谭嵩娟1, 程遐年1, 刘裕强1,*(), 万建民1,3   

  1. 1南京农业大学作物遗传与种质创新国家重点实验室, 江苏南京 210095
    2广西壮族自治区农业科学院水稻研究所, 广西南宁 530007
    3中国农业科学院作物科学研究所, 北京 100081
  • 收稿日期:2021-06-06 接受日期:2022-05-05 出版日期:2022-11-12 网络出版日期:2022-05-24
  • 通讯作者: 刘裕强
  • 作者简介:第一作者联系方式: E-mail: 2018101087@njau.edu.cn
  • 基金资助:
    本研究由国家重点研发计划项目(2017YFD0100400-01);国家自然科学基金项目(32088102);国家自然科学基金项目(32072030);江苏省重点研发计划项目(BE2019380)

Mapping of QTLs for resistance to white-backed planthopper in Guangxi wild rice Y11

YANG Ming1(), LI Dan-Ting2, FAN De-Jia1, TAN Song-Juan1, CHENG Xia-Nian1, LIU Yu-Qiang1,*(), WAN Jian-Min1,3   

  1. 1State Key Laboratory of Crop Genetics and Germplasm Enhancement, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing 210095, Jiangsu, China
    2Rice Research Institute, Guangxi Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Nanning 530007, Jiangsu, China
    3Institute of Crop Sciences, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing 100081, China
  • Received:2021-06-06 Accepted:2022-05-05 Published:2022-11-12 Published online:2022-05-24
  • Contact: LIU Yu-Qiang
  • Supported by:
    The National Key Research and Development Program of China(2017YFD0100400-01);The National Natural Science Foundation of China(32088102);The National Natural Science Foundation of China(32072030);The Jiangsu Provincial Key Research Program(BE2019380)

RichHTML

21

PDF

462

摘要：

白背飞虱是危害水稻生产最严重的害虫之一。培育抗性品种是防治白背飞虱最经济有效的措施。本研究发现广西野生稻‘Y11’高抗白背飞虱, ‘Y11’植株上白背飞虱的数量及存活率均显著低于感虫品种‘广恢998’, 表现出较强的排趋性和抗生性。为解析‘Y11’抗白背飞虱的遗传基础, 以‘Y11’为供体亲本, 籼稻品种‘广恢998’为轮回亲本, 构建了BC3F9回交重组自交系群体, 并完成了该群体白背飞虱苗期抗性鉴定及全基因组连锁图谱的构建, 进行了抗白背飞虱QTL (quantitative trait locus)检测。结果发现, 在水稻2号、6号和11号染色体上检测到3个抗性位点, 分别命名为qWBPH2Y11, qWBPH6Y11和qWBPH1Y11, 其LOD值分别为4.8、2.5和3.7, 分别解释表型变异的9.3%、2.3%和5.6%, 且3个QTL的抗性等位基因均来自于广西野生稻‘Y11’。进一步从BC3F9回交群体中挑选携带qWBPH2位点的家系继续与‘广恢998’回交2次, 经标记辅助选择, 获得了qWBPH2的近等基因系, 近等基因系的白背飞虱抗性显著高于背景亲本‘广恢998’。上述抗白背飞虱QTL的定位及近等基因系的构建, 为抗性基因克隆及通过分子标记辅助选择培育抗性品种奠定了基础。

关键词: 水稻, 白背飞虱, 数量性状基因座, 基因定位

Abstract:

White-backed planthopper (WBPH) is one of the most serious pests in rice production. Breeding resistant varieties is the most economical and effective strategy to control the white-backed planthopper. In this study, we found that Guangxi wild rice variety ‘Y11’ had high resistance to white-backed planthopper. The number and survival rate of WBPH were significantly less than the susceptible variety ‘Guanghui 998’. These results showed that ‘Y11’ displayed higher antixenosis and antibiosis against WBPH. Subsequently, ‘Y11’ was as the donor parent and an indica cultivar ‘Guanghui 998’ was as the recurrent parent by continuous backcrossing and selfing to obtain the BC3F9 population. Furthermore, to identify the quantitative trait locus (QTL) for white-backed planthopper resistance, we completed the evaluation of this population for WBPH resistance at seedling stage and constructed the genome-wide linkage map. Three QTLs were detected on the three different rice chromosomes, and designed as qWBPH2Y11, qWBPH6Y11, and qWBPH11Y11, respectively. The LOD values were 4.8, 2.5, and 3.7, which accounted for 9.3%, 2.3%, and 5.6% of the phenotypic variation, respectively. All of the resistance alleles were from resistant parent ‘Y11’. Plant harboring qWBPH2 Y11 was selected from BC3F9 population to continuously backcross with ‘Guanghui 998’. The near isogenic line of qWBPH2 Y11 was developed by molecular marker assisted selection, which displayed higher resistance to WBPH than the background parent ‘Guanghui 998’. The mapping of WBPH resistance QTLs and the development of the near isogenic line in this study will be helpful for cloning resistance genes and breeding resistant in rice cultivars.

Key words: rice (Oryza sativa L.), white-backed planthopper (WBPH), QTLs, gene mapping

表1

水稻白背飞虱抗性评价标准"

等级
Resistance score		 死苗率
Mortality rate (%)		 受害症状
Damage symptoms
0 <1.0 无损伤
No damage
1 1.1-10.0 非常微弱损伤
Very weak damage
3 10.1-30.0 第一、二叶叶尖发黄, 轻微的发育迟缓
The first and second leaves were yellow tips and slight developmental delay
5 30.1-50.0 明显的黄化矮化或大约一半的植物枯萎或死亡
Significant yellowing dwarfing or about half of the plants withered or died
7 50.1-70.0 超过半数植株死亡, 其他植株明显矮化萎蔫
More than half of the plants died, and the other plants were obviously dwarfed and wilted
9 >70.0 所有植株死亡
All the plants died

图1

‘Y11’和‘广恢998’白背飞虱抗性比较分析 A: 接种白背飞虱约10 d后‘Y11’和‘广恢998’植株; B: 接种白背飞虱10 d后‘Y11’和‘广恢998’的死苗率统计分析; C: 接种虫1、2和4 d后 ‘Y11’和‘广恢998’植株上白背飞虱的存活率; D: ‘Y11’和‘广恢998’各接种20头白背飞虱后0、1、2、3和4 d虫子数量; E: ‘Y11’和‘广恢998’置于虫源4周不同时间点白背飞虱数量统计分析。*: P < 0.05; **: P < 0.01; 标尺为3 cm。"

图2

‘Y11’/‘广恢998’ BC3F9群体白背飞虱抗性等级次数分布"

图3

‘Y11’/‘广恢998’BC3F9分子遗传图谱"

图4

抗白背飞虱QTL位点在染色体上的分布 黑色椭圆表示QTL在染色体上的位置。"

表2

‘Y11’/‘广恢998’ BC3F9群体检测到的抗白背飞虱QTL位点"

QTL 染色体
Chr.		 标记区间
Marker interval		 LOD值
LOD score		 贡献率
Variance explained (%)		 加性效应
Additive effect
qWBPH2Y11 2 id2013634 to id2015636 4.8 9.3 -0.20
qWBPH6Y11 6 id6006868 to id6007754 2.5 2.3 -0.07
qWBPH11Y11 11 id11005456 to K_id11007840 3.7 5.6 -0.17

图5

qWBPH2Y11近等基因系W0394白背飞虱抗性分析 A: 接种白背飞虱约10 d后‘W0394’和‘广恢998’的植株照片; B: 接种白背飞虱10 d‘W0394’和‘广恢998’的死苗率统计分析。标尺为3 cm; **: P < 0.01。"

[1] Li Y, Cao Y, Zhou Q, Guo H, Ou G. The efficiency of southern rice black-streaked dwarf virus transmission by the vector Sogatella furcifera to different host plant species. J Integr Agric, 2012, 11: 621-627.
doi: 10.1016/S2095-3119(12)60049-5
[2] Wu Y, Zhang G, Chen X, Li X, Xiong K, Cao S, Hu Y, Lu M, Liu W, Tuan H, Qi G, Zhao B. The influence of Sogatella furcifera (Hemiptera: Delphacidae) migratory events on the southern rice black-streaked dwarf virus epidemics. J Econom Entomol, 2017, 110: 854-864.
doi: 10.1093/jee/tox062
[3] Sidhu G, Khush G, Medrano F. A dominant gene in rice for resistance to white-backed planthopper and its relationship to other plant characteristics. Euphytica, 1979, 28: 227-232.
doi: 10.1007/BF00056579
[4] Angeles E, Khush G, Heinrichs E. New genes for resistance to white-backed planthopper in rice. Crop Sci, 1981, 21: 47-50.
doi: 10.2135/cropsci1981.0011183X002100010014x
[5] Hernandez J, Khush G. Genetics of resistance to white-backed planthopper in some rice (Oryza sativa L.) varieties. Oryza, 1981, 18: 44-50.
[6] Wu C, Khush G. A new dominant gene for resistance to white-backed planthopper in rice. Crop Sci, 1985, 25: 505-509.
doi: 10.2135/cropsci1985.0011183X002500030017x
[7] Li X M, Zhai H Q, Wan J M, Ma L Y, Zhuang J Y, Liu G J, Yang C D. Mapping of a new gene Wbph6(t) resistant to the white backed planthopper, Sogatella furcifera, in rice. Rice Sci, 2004, 11: 86-90.
[8] Sidhu N, Bansal U, Shukla K, Saini R. Genetics of resistance to white-backed planthopper in five rice stocks. SABRAO J Breed Genet, 2005, 37: 1-11.
[9] Yamasaki M, Yoshimura A, Yasui H. Genetic basis of ovicidal response to white-backed planthopper (Sogatella furcifera Horváth) in rice (Oryza sativa L.). Mol Breed, 2003, 12: 133-143.
doi: 10.1023/A:1026018821472
[10] Tan G, Weng Q, Ren X, Huang Z, Zhu L, He G. Two white-backed planthopper resistance genes in rice share the same loci with those for brown planthopper resistance. Heredity, 2004, 92: 212-217.
pmid: 14666132
[11] 沈子杰, 范德佳, 何俊, 黄捷, 江玲, 程遐年, 刘裕强, 万建民. 籼稻品种‘IR13427-45-2-1-2-2-2’抗白背飞虱QTL定位. 南京农业大学学报, 2017, 40: 957-962.
Shen Z J, Fan D J, He J, Huang J, Jiang L, Cheng X N, Liu Y Q, Wan J M. QTL mapping of indica rice variety ‘IR13427-45-2-1-2-2-2’ against white-backed planthopper. J Nanjing Agric Univ, 2017, 40: 957-962. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[12] McCouch S R, Khush G S, Tanksley S D. Tagging genes for disease and insect resistance via linkage to RFLP markers. In: BantaS J, ArgosinoG S,eds. Rice Genetics II. Manila: International Rice Research Institute, 2008. pp 443-449.
[13] Ramesh K, Padmavathi G, Deen R, Pandey M, Lakshmi J, Bentur J. White-backed planthopper Sogatella furcifera (Horváth) (Homoptera: Delphacidae) resistance in rice variety Sinna Sivappu. Euphytica, 2014, 200: 139-148.
doi: 10.1007/s10681-014-1175-4
[14] Yang Y, Xu J, Leng Y, Xiong G, Hu J, Zhang G, Huang L, Wang L, Guo L, Li J, Chen F, Qian Q, Zeng D. Quantitative trait loci identification, fine mapping and gene expression profiling for ovicidal response to white-backed planthopper (Sogatella furcifera Horvath) in rice (Oryza sativa L.). BMC Plant Biol, 2014, 14: 145.
doi: 10.1186/1471-2229-14-145
[15] Fan D J, Liu Y Q, Zhang H L, He J, Huang F K, Huang S S, Wu B Q, Liu D M, Wen P Z, Liu L L, Jiang L, Cheng X N, Wan J M. Identification and fine mapping of qWBPH11 conferring resistance to white-backed planthopper (Sogatella furcifera Horvath) in rice (Oryza sativa L.). Mol Breed, 2018, 38: 96-104.
doi: 10.1007/s11032-018-0846-6
[16] IRRI. Standard Evaluation Systems for Rice (SES). Manila: International Rice Research Institute, 2002. pp 12-21.
[17] Xu X, Kawasaki S, Fujimura T, Wang C. A protocol for high-throughput extraction of DNA from rice leaves. Plant Mol Biol Rep, 2005, 23: 291-295.
doi: 10.1007/BF02772759
[18] Li H, Ye G, Wang J. A modified algorithm for the improvement of composite interval mapping. Genetics, 2007, 175: 361-374.
doi: 10.1534/genetics.106.066811
[19] Meng L, Li H, Zhang L, Wang J. QTL IciMapping: integrated software for genetic linkage map construction and quantitative trait locus mapping in biparental populations. Crop J, 2015, 3: 269-283.
doi: 10.1016/j.cj.2015.01.001
[20] McCouch S. Gene nomenclature system for rice. Rice, 2008, 1: 72-84.
doi: 10.1007/s12284-008-9004-9
[21] Gomi K, Satoh M, Ozawa R, Shinonaga Y, Sanada S, Sasaki K, Matsumura M, Ohashi Y, Kanno H, Akimitsu K, Takabayashi J. Role of hydroperoxide lyase in white-backed planthopper (Sogatella furcifera Horváth)-induced resistance to bacterial blight in rice (Oryza sativa L.). Plant J, 2010, 61: 46-57.
doi: 10.1111/j.1365-313X.2009.04031.x
[22] Ma M, Wu Y, Peng Z, Zhao X, Zhang Y, Liao G, Zhai B. Migration analysis of Sogatella furcifera (Hemiptera: Delphacidae) in the northeastern Hunan province in June. Environ Entomol, 2017, 46: 757-765.
doi: 10.1093/ee/nvx092
[23] Wang Y, Cao L, Zhang Y, Cao C, Liu F, Huang F, Qiu Y, Li R, Lou X. Map-based cloning and characterization of BPH29, a B3 domain-containing recessive gene conferring brown planthopper resistance in rice. J Exp Bot, 2015, 66: 6035-6045.
doi: 10.1093/jxb/erv318
[24] Ren J, Gao F, Wu X, Lu X, Zeng L, Lyu J, Su X, Luo H, Ren G. Bph32, a novel gene encoding an unknown SCR domain- containing protein, confers resistance against the brown planthopper in rice. Sci Rep, 2016, 6: 37645.
doi: 10.1038/srep37645
[1] 胡赵, 钱润, 谢丰璞, 应素平. 水稻SPX基因家族鉴定及响应磷处理的表达分析[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(6): 1902-1912.
[2] 邹仪妹, 徐敏, 汪海洋, 姚辉, 王加峰, 刘浩, 任代胜. 两系不育系水稻幼苗根系响应盐胁迫的转录因子调控网络鉴定[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(6): 1728-1742.
[3] 闫安, 蒋昆炜, 王蓉圆, 田林, 张璐, 王韵, 徐建龙. 水稻剑叶小维管束数基因SVN7的鉴定与克隆[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(5): 1364-1372.
[4] 陈伟, 卫万娟, 赵其兵, 常东伟, 余凌波, 翟鹏飞, 冯志明, 陈宗祥, 任仰涛, 杨鹏, 刘海浪, 李珍富, 杨永乐, 金彦刚, 左示敏. 利用CRISPR/Cas9编辑Hd6基因创制优质早熟水稻新种质[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(4): 1046-1056.
[5] 石少阶, 刘凯, 陈姿夷, 王卉颖, 李三和, 周雷, 游艾青. 水稻矮化多分蘖基因DMT1的克隆与功能分析[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(4): 1022-1034.
[6] 覃奕琰, 付瑶, 苏畅, 李娜, 徐静茹, 程笑然, 张琪, 赵明辉. OsST41调控水稻苗期耐盐性的功能分析[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(3): 802-812.
[7] 叶凡, 李帅, 李思宇, 陈云, 窦超银, 刘立军. 不同节水灌溉方式对东北稻区水稻产量和群体质量的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(3): 895-907.
[8] 王婵, 吴莹莹, 李文奇, 李霞, 王芳权, 周彤, 杨杰. 基于HRM技术开发水稻抗条纹叶枯病基因STV11功能标记[J]. 作物学报, 2025, 51(9): 2547-2556.
[9] 陈惠莹, 何嘉欣, 朱斌, 黄士轩, 周星佑, 伍君权, 杨美艳. 水稻黄单胞菌噬菌体vB_XaS_HDB2的全基因组分析和生物学特性研究[J]. 作物学报, 2025, 51(8): 2087-2099.
[10] 杨海洋, 吴林宣, 李博纹, 石翰峰, 袁禧龙, 刘金朝, 蔡海荣, 陈诗怡, 郭涛, 王慧. 基于QTL定位发现的OsWRI3调控水稻种子的落粒性[J]. 作物学报, 2025, 51(7): 1712-1724.
[11] 雷松翰, 范骏扬, 车艳奕, 代永东, 郑雨萌, 田维江, 桑贤春, 王晓雯. 水稻内卷叶突变体acl3的鉴定及调控基因的功能分析[J]. 作物学报, 2025, 51(6): 1467-1479.
[12] 李福媛, 杨奕, 马继琼, 许明辉, 林良斌, 孙一丁. 水稻OsPUB4基因克隆、激素诱导表达分析与互作蛋白筛选[J]. 作物学报, 2025, 51(6): 1690-1700.
[13] 李世鹏, 陈才武, 张晶, 吕恬, 傅廷栋, 易斌. 基于改进U-Net++模型的油菜pol TCMS温敏两系育性等级鉴定及温度育性关系的量化研究[J]. 作物学报, 2025, 51(6): 1423-1434.
[14] 杨思杰, 杜启迪, 柴守玺, 熊宏春, 谢永盾, 赵林姝, 古佳玉, 郭会君, 刘录祥. 小麦小旗叶突变性状基因定位与遗传分析[J]. 作物学报, 2025, 51(6): 1548-1557.
[15] 袁鑫, 赵卓凡, 赵瑞清, 刘孝伟, 郑名敏, 刘育生, 董好胜, 邓丽娟, 曹墨菊, 黄强. 一份玉米小籽粒发育突变体mn-like1的遗传分析与分子鉴定[J]. 作物学报, 2025, 51(6): 1569-1581.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!
京ICP备15008789号-2