Shahjahan MB, Jalani S, Zakri AH, Imbe T. Othman O. 1990. Inheritance of tolerance of rice<strong>tungro</strong> bacilliform virus (RTBV) in rice ( Oryza sativa L.). Theor. Appl. Genet. 8:513-517.Suprihatno B. 1985. Pewarisan Sifat Ketahanan Varietas Terhadap Penyakit Tungro. In: Tungro.Risalah temu lapang pengendalian penyakit <strong>tungro</strong> di daerah Banyumas. Jawa Tengah,18-19 September 1985. p 26-32.NotesAuthors’ address: A.A. Daradjat, N. Widiarta. and A. Hasanuddin, Research Institute for <strong>Rice</strong>,J1. Raya IX Sukamandi 41256 Subang. West Java. Indonesia.Acknowledgments: We appreciate the help of Dr. M.D. Moentono and Dr. Suparyono in reviewingthe manuscript.Citation: Chancellor TCB, Azzam O, Heong KL. editors. 1999. <strong>Rice</strong> <strong>tungro</strong> <strong>disease</strong> <strong>management</strong>,Proceedings of the <strong>International</strong> Workshop on Tungro Disease Management, 9-11November 1998, <strong>IRRI</strong>, Los Baños, Philippines. Makati City (Philippines): <strong>International</strong><strong>Rice</strong> Research Institute. 166 p.Breeding for rice <strong>tungro</strong> virus 37
Genetic engineering of ricefor <strong>tungro</strong> resistanceO. Azzam, A. Klöti, F. Sta. Cruz, J. Fütterer, E.L. Coloquio, I. Potrykus, and R. HullGenes encoding sense and antisense viral coat proteins, polymerases,and proteases have been successfully used to engineer resistance to severalplant viruses. In this study, viral genes of rice <strong>tungro</strong> bacilliform virusand the coat protein 3 of rice <strong>tungro</strong> spherical virus were used to engineerresistance in rice against <strong>tungro</strong> infection. <strong>Rice</strong> varieties such as IR64,TN1, Taipei 309, and Kinuhikari were successfully transformed and fertiletransgenic plants were evaluated at T1 and T2 generations for their abilityto confer protection against <strong>tungro</strong> infection using insect inoculation assays.Unfortunately, none of the 71 transgenic lines tested provided protectionagainst <strong>tungro</strong> infection. Possible factors for the lack of protectionare discussed.Genetic engineering approaches expand the gene pool from which new and novelvirus resistance genes can be selected. For complex <strong>disease</strong>s of rice, such as <strong>tungro</strong>,these approaches offer two advantages: (1) the ability to transfer single genes withoutany linkage to undesirable traits, and (2) the ability to introduce novel genes that havenot been explored before in nature and that have potential to increase the durability ofresistance. <strong>Rice</strong> <strong>tungro</strong> <strong>disease</strong> incidence is unpredictable, but when it occurs, it cancause catastrophic yield losses in farmers’ communities in the irrigated rice ecosystem.For the last 15 yr, several institutions have invested substantial research effortsin studying the molecular biology of the two viruses that cause <strong>tungro</strong>, rice <strong>tungro</strong>bacilliform virus (RTBV) and rice <strong>tungro</strong> spherical virus (RTSV), and to geneticallyengineer <strong>tungro</strong> resistance in rice. In this study, we report on the resistance tests doneusing insect inoculation assays to evaluate several of these antiviral strategies designedagainst both RTBV and RTSV. The transgenic rice plants were produced at theInstitute of Plant Sciences, ETH, Zurich, Switzerland and John Innes Centre (JIC),Norwich. England, and the evaluation was done at the transgenic CL4 greenhousefacility at <strong>IRRI</strong>.Materials and methodsTables 1 and 2 describe the first 19 transgenic lines from ETH and 20 lines from JIC,respectively. Some additional 32 lines from ETH carrying the antisense RNA constructsof RTBV ORF4 were also evaluated. Seeds from each transgenic line, positivecontrols (inoculated nontransgenic plants). and negative controls (uninoculatedtransgenic plants) were sown in sterile soil and seedlings were grown in the CL4facility at <strong>IRRI</strong>. At 7–11 d after sowing (DAS), seedlings were inoculated with both<strong>tungro</strong> viruses by insect feeding using viruliferous green leafhoppers (3–5 insectsseedling -1 ). Inoculated plants were then monitored for symptom expression and assayedfor the presence or absence of virus particles at 20 and 40 d postinoculation(DPI). For the evaluation of the first 19 transgenic lines from ETH, two sources of
- Page 2 and 3: RiceTungro DiseaseManagementEdited
- Page 4 and 5: ContentsRice tungro disease in the
- Page 6 and 7: ForewordThe intensification of rice
- Page 8 and 9: PrefaceProviding farmers with optio
- Page 10 and 11: Rice tungro disease in the Philippi
- Page 12 and 13: Cotabato, and Laguna) during 1995-9
- Page 14 and 15: seed growers and farmers to increas
- Page 16 and 17: Fig. 2. Incidence of rice tungro di
- Page 18 and 19: De los Reyes JB, Cabunagan, RC, Col
- Page 20 and 21: Preliminary analysis of genetic var
- Page 22 and 23: Fig. 2. Distinct rice tungro bacill
- Page 24 and 25: Fig. 4. Dendogram depicting the rel
- Page 26 and 27: Preliminary analysis of genetic var
- Page 28 and 29: Table 1. Size characteristics of th
- Page 30 and 31: varieties and did not seem to exert
- Page 32 and 33: Developing breeding lines with RTD
- Page 34 and 35: In CES, 28 entries had low tungro i
- Page 36 and 37: Table 2. Best rice tungro disease-r
- Page 38 and 39: Breeding for rice tungro virus resi
- Page 40 and 41: Table 2. Promising lines resistant
- Page 42 and 43: Table 4. Rice cultivars used as hyb
- Page 46 and 47: Table 1. Initial 19 transgenic line
- Page 48 and 49: Table 4. Percent infection of trans
- Page 50 and 51: very low level. In fact, transgene
- Page 52 and 53: of Agricultural Research (ICAR). Pr
- Page 54 and 55: Fig. 2. Mean infection with rice tu
- Page 56 and 57: (RTBV) and rice tungro spherical vi
- Page 58 and 59: Table 4. Percent infection a with r
- Page 60 and 61: GLH numbers were much lower on IR62
- Page 62 and 63: Cabunagan RC, Hibino H, Sama S, Riz
- Page 64 and 65: Prospects of virus-resistant variet
- Page 66 and 67: Tungro in Bali (1987-97)Tungro infe
- Page 68 and 69: Fig. 5. Proportion of varieties gro
- Page 70 and 71: Table 3. Percent incidence of rice
- Page 72 and 73: Evaluating rice germplasm for resis
- Page 74 and 75: Table 2. Percent infection a with r
- Page 76 and 77: Rice tungro disease resistance andm
- Page 78 and 79: Table 1. Percent infection a with r
- Page 80 and 81: ecommended vector-resistant variety
- Page 82 and 83: Materials and methodsBatches of ant
- Page 84 and 85: ReferencesClark MF, Adams AN. 1977.
- Page 86 and 87: (e.g., Sokal and Rohlf 1995, p 213;
- Page 88 and 89: Surveillance scheme for tungro fore
- Page 90 and 91: entrusted with implementing the pro
- Page 92 and 93: Table 1. Number of mobile nursery t
- Page 94 and 95:
are implemented immediately. The co
- Page 96 and 97:
Farmers’ rice tungro managementpr
- Page 98 and 99:
Experience with tungroAlthough both
- Page 100 and 101:
Table 5. Farmers (%) reporting tung
- Page 102 and 103:
Table 7. Farmers’ reported tungro
- Page 104 and 105:
Table 9. Mean number (standard devi
- Page 106 and 107:
than rice), so they may be reluctan
- Page 108 and 109:
Community-based rice pest managemen
- Page 110 and 111:
Establishment of farmers’ indigen
- Page 112 and 113:
Meanwhile, insects, diseases, and n
- Page 114 and 115:
Table 2. Most important diseases fo
- Page 116 and 117:
Farmers’ knowledge of pest contro
- Page 118 and 119:
ha -1 and above) had a lower RTD in
- Page 120 and 121:
Fig. 4. Three major peaks of green
- Page 122 and 123:
RBB hill -1 and 4% WSB (Fig. 6). In
- Page 124 and 125:
The influence of varietal resistanc
- Page 126 and 127:
Limited data exist on how resistant
- Page 128 and 129:
tember plantings, reaching 13% and
- Page 130 and 131:
Holt J, Chancellor TCB, Reynolds DR
- Page 132 and 133:
glh4, respectively. Planting at the
- Page 134 and 135:
Results and discussionMinimum unit
- Page 136 and 137:
Fig. 4. Transmission efficiency of
- Page 138 and 139:
Table 1. Enzyme-linked immunosorben
- Page 140 and 141:
Leafhopper control by insecticides
- Page 142 and 143:
Fig. 1. Cartoon used for tungro man
- Page 144 and 145:
The role of vector control in rice
- Page 146 and 147:
To establish relationships between
- Page 148 and 149:
Fig. 1. Influence of antifeedants o
- Page 150 and 151:
Fig. 4. Tungro incidence before har
- Page 152 and 153:
ReferencesAryawan IGN, Widiarta IN,
- Page 154 and 155:
Materials and methodsSeedbed protec
- Page 156 and 157:
Table 2. Relationship of RTD incide
- Page 158 and 159:
Management of rice tungro disease b
- Page 160 and 161:
Results and discussionGLH populatio
- Page 162 and 163:
Table 4. Field evaluation of foliar
- Page 164 and 165:
3.6 to 2.7 t ha -1 . These yields w