Rice tungro disease management - IRRI books - International Rice ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 4. Percent infection of transgenic lines based on ELSA and visual scores(SS) using mylar test tube inoculation with Famy isolate as inoculum. ELISAresults are shown for 20 and 40 days postinoculation (DPI).Percent lnfectionConstruct. line Plants tested 20 DPI 40 DPI Visualnumbers(no.)scores aRTBV RTSV RTBV RTSV (SS)5.3 14 100 100 100 100 738.2 28 100 100 100 100 838.7 28 100 100 100 92 71.3 27 100 96 100 891.6 26 100 96 99 961.18 28 100 100 100 1001.27 28 100 96 100 96992.3128 100 100 100a <strong>IRRI</strong> Standard Evaluation System (SES), 1=resistant, 9=susceptible27.17.640.58.210.411.811.1142.1K42.1K42.1.1K44.10.9282828212828426282822100100100100100100100100100100951001009610096100100100100939110010010010010010010010010010010010010097100100100100100100968533.1 (construct alone) 27 100 92 100 100TP 309 (nontransgenic) 22 100 100 100 97Kinuhikari (nontransgenic) 28 100 100 100 100TP 309 (uninoculated)19 0 0 0 0Kinuhikari (uninoculated) 28 0 0 0 0777777878777777777711lines. Some plants had high RTSV and RTBV titers while others, surprisingly, hadlow RTSV but high RTBV titers. Based on the ELISA results and visual scores, noneof the test lines recovered at 40 DPI. The average symptom severity (SS) was about 7per line, indicating that most individual plants within a line exhibited stunted growthand leaf discoloration. The 32 remaining lines from ETH were tested using only thegreenhouse virus population and results were similar to those obtained earlier. Noneof the lines showed resistance to RTBV at 20 DPI and plants did not recover after 40DPI (data not presented).Furthermore, none of the lines from JIC showed any promising protection againsteither RTBV or RTSV. Based on ELISA and visual scores, the plants accumulatedRTBV at a level similar to that of the nontransgenic control plants. Generation T1 andT2 plants of the IRI and IRK lines did not show any protection against virus infection(Table 5).42 Azzam et al
Table 5. Percent infection of transgenic lines based on ELlSA and visual scores(SS) using mylar test tube inoculation with the greenhouse isolate as inoculum. ELlSAresults are shown for 21 days postinoculation (DPI).Line Clones tested line -1 Plants tested % infection % lnfection(no.) with RTBV with RTSVIRI 1IRI 2IRI 9IRI 28IRI 37IRK 41IRW 1IRW 2IRW 3IR64 inoculated controlTN1 inoculated controlIR64 uninoculatedRH 58Taipei 309 inoculatedTaipei 309 uninoculatedIRU 1IRU 2IRU 4TNVP 1TNVP 3TNVP 4TNVP 6TNVP 7TNVO 1TNVO 3TN1 inoculated controlTN1 uninoculated411216542Nontransgenic3322111121127383754405817927727402586392081806339374039322234402064909289100609597979610009597095851001001001001009810097100011507865100196076747410008774069636231971009794100771000DiscussionFour rice varieties, IR64, TNl, Taipei 309, and Kinuhikari, were successfully transformedwith RTBV and RTSV gene constructs and fertile transgenic plants were generated.The coat protein, polymerase, protease, RNase H, and antisense RNA resistancestrategies were used to confer protection against RTBV infection using the cauliflower35S and RTBV promoters. The coat protein strategy was tried against RTSVinfection using the 35S and ubiquitin promoters. Most of these strategies have beensuccessful in other virus systems and they were expected to be effective with DNAand RNA viruses. Unfortunately, the resistance tests showed that none of these strategieswas effective against <strong>tungro</strong> infection.In the transformation experiments with the coat protein, polymerase, and proteasestrategies, most constructs were expected to express viral proteins when integratedin rice. Most transgenic plants, however, expressed the transgenes only at aGenetic engineering of rice 43
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 44 and 45: Shahjahan MB, Jalani S, Zakri AH, I
Page 46 and 47: Table 1. Initial 19 transgenic line
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 76 and 77: Rice tungro disease resistance andm
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
show all

Rice tungro disease management - IRRI books - International Rice ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?