Recessive and dominant genes confer resistance to Colletotrichum truncatum in cultivated lentil

Figures & data

Table 1.  Segregation of resistance to C. truncatum in L. culinaris ‘Eston’ × ‘Indianhead’ progenies providing evidence for one recessive resistance gene, ctr1, effective against isolate 91IH and one dominant gene, CtR3, effective against isolate 95B36 in ‘Indianhead’

Parents and progenies	R-gene	Total plants	Observed ratio R : S	Expected ratio R : S	χ^2	P
Isolate 91IH
‘Eston’		79
‘Indianhead’	ctr1CtR3	53
F1		17	0 : 17	All S
BC1S		9	0 : 9	All S
BC1R		11	5 : 6	1 : 1
F2		264	78 : 186	1 : 3	2.91	0.09
F3 families (45)		816	10 : 29 : 6	1 : 2 : 1	3.92	0.14
Isolate 95B36
‘Eston’		20
‘Indianhead’	ctr1CtR3	19
F1		10	10 : 0	All R
BC1S		45	21 : 24	1 : 1	0.20	0.65
BC1R		48	48 : 0	All R

Fig. 1. Per cent resistant (white bars) and susceptible (grey bars) lentil plants in three F₃ families resistant to C. truncatum isolate 91IH derived from crosses between the susceptible ‘Eston’ and each of (a) ‘Indianhead’, (b) PI320937 and (c) PI345629.

Table 2.  Segregation of resistance to C. truncatum in L. culinaris ‘Eston’ × PI320937 progenies providing evidence for one dominant resistance gene, CtR4, in PI320937 effective against two isolates, 91IH and 95B36

Parents and progenies	R-gene	Total plants	Observed ratio R : S	Expected ratio R : S	χ^2	P
Isolate 91IH
‘Eston’		34
PI320937	CtR4	37
F1		17	17 : 0	All R
F2		192	140 : 52	3 : 1	0.44	0.50
F3 families (46)		698	11 : 29 : 6	1 : 2 : 1	4.22	0.12
Isolate 95B36
‘Eston’		18
PI320937	CtR4	20
F1		6	6 : 0	All R
BC1S		43	22 : 21	1 : 1	0.00	1.00
BC1R		32	32 : 0	All R
F2		126	90 : 36	3 : 1	0.67	0.41

Table 3.  Segregation of resistance to C. truncatum in L. culinaris ‘Eston’ × PI345629 progenies providing evidence for one recessive and one dominant resistance gene, ctr2CtR5, in PI345629 effective against isolate 91IH

Parents and progenies	R-gene	Total plants	Observed ratio R : S	Expected ratio R : S	χ^2	P
Isolate 91IH
‘Eston’		50
PI345629	ctr2CtR5	40
F1		8	8 : 0	All R
BC1S		46	23 : 23	1 : 1
BC1R		42	42 : 0	All R
F2		287	207 : 80	13 : 3	15.42	0.00
F3 families (48)		728	3 : 39 : 6	7 : 8 : 1	27.80	0.00

Table 4.  Segregation of resistance to C. truncatum in L. culinaris ’Indianhead’ × PI320937 progenies supporting the presence of ctr1CtR3 in ‘Indianhead’ and CtR4 in PI320937

Parents and progenies	R-gene	Total plants	Observed ratio R : S	Expected ratio R : S	χ^2	P
Isolate 91IH
‘Indianhead’	ctr1CtR3	25
PI320937	CtR4	39
F1		9	9 : 0	All R
F2		168	144 : 24	13 : 3	1.94	0.16
Isolate 95B36
‘Indianhead’	ctr1CtR3	20
PI320937	CtR4	20
F1		27	27 : 0	All R
F2		341	341 : 0	15 : 1	22.37	0.00

Table 5.  Segregation of resistance to C. truncatum in L. culinaris PI320937 × PI345629 progenies supporting the presence of ctr1CtR3 in ‘Indianhead’ and ctr2CtR5 in PI345629

Parents and progenies	R-gene	Total plants	Observed ratio R : S	Expected ratio R : S	χ^2	P
Isolate 91IH
‘Indianhead’	ctr1CtR3	16
PI345629	ctr2CtR5	31
F1		12	12 : 0	All R
F2		153	131 : 22	55 : 9	0.12	0.72
Isolate 95B36
‘Indianhead’	ctr1CtR3	20
PI 345629	ctr2CtR5	19
F1		3	3 : 0	All R
F2		435	428 : 7	61 : 3	8.86	0.00

Table 6.  Segregation for resistance to C. truncatum in L. culinaris PI320937 × PI345629 progenies supporting the presence of CtR4 in PI320937 and ctr2CtR5 in PI345629

Parents and progenies	R-gene	Total plants	Observed ratio R : S	Expected ratio R : S	χ^2	P
Isolate 91IH
PI320937	CtR4	28
PI345629	ctr2CtR5	20
F2		105	101 : 4	61 : 3	0.21	0.65
Isolate 95B36
PI320937	CtR4	18
PI345629	ctr2CtR5	20
F1		19	19 : 0	All R
F2		491	476 : 15	61 : 3	2.92	0.09