Next Article in Journal
Root Exudation: The Ecological Driver of Hydrocarbon Rhizoremediation
Next Article in Special Issue
Evaluation of African-Bred Maize Germplasm Lines for Resistance to Aflatoxin Accumulation
Previous Article in Journal
Temporal Dynamics in Rhizosphere Bacterial Communities of Three Perennial Grassland Species
Previous Article in Special Issue
Novel QTL for Stripe Rust Resistance on Chromosomes 4A and 6B in Soft White Winter Wheat Cultivars
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agronomy
Volume 6
Issue 1
10.3390/agronomy6010018
agronomy-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

An Update on Genetic Resistance of Chickpea to Ascochyta Blight

by
Mamta Sharma
* and
Raju Ghosh
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, Patancheru 502324, Telangana, India
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2016, 6(1), 18; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy6010018
Submission received: 3 December 2015 / Revised: 19 February 2016 / Accepted: 24 February 2016 / Published: 8 March 2016
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Breeding for Disease Resistance)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Ascochyta blight (AB) caused by Ascochyta rabiei (Pass.) Labr. is an important and widespread disease of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) worldwide. The disease is particularly severe under cool and humid weather conditions. Breeding for host resistance is an efficient means to combat this disease. In this paper, attempts have been made to summarize the progress made in identifying resistance sources, genetics and breeding for resistance, and genetic variation among the pathogen population. The search for resistance to AB in chickpea germplasm, breeding lines and land races using various screening methods has been updated. Importance of the genotype × environment (GE) interaction in elucidating the aggressiveness among isolates from different locations and the identification of pathotypes and stable sources of resistance have also been discussed. Current and modern breeding programs for AB resistance based on crossing resistant/multiple resistant and high-yielding cultivars, stability of the breeding lines through multi-location testing and molecular marker-assisted selection method have been discussed. Gene pyramiding and the use of resistant genes present in wild relatives can be useful methods in the future. Identification of additional sources of resistance genes, good characterization of the host–pathogen system, and identification of molecular markers linked to resistance genes are suggested as the key areas for future study.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Ascochyta blight (AB), caused by Ascochyta rabiei (Pass.) Labr., is an important disease of chickpea in many countries (India, Bangladesh, Algeria, Israel, Italy, Morocco, Nepal, Spain, Pakistan, Syria, Iran, USA, Australia and Canada) where cool and humid weather prevails during the flowering to podding stage [1,2,3,4,5,6,7]. AB severely reduces the yield of chickpea and can cause complete yield losses under favorable conditions [8,9,10,11]. The occurrence of AB has been reported in more than 40 countries across the world [12]. In most of the growing systems, chickpea is a dryland crop (rainfed) and it relies on residual soil moisture; however, in Mediterranean-like environments, the crop is sown either as a winter crop (rainfed), or as spring crop [13,14]. Winter sowing exposes chickpea to a high risk of AB and thus requires the development of resistant cultivars.
Despite worldwide recognition of the destructive potential of A. rabiei in chickpea production, very little headway in understanding pathogen biology, disease epidemiology and management has been made. Understanding pathogen population structure is important for the deployment of resistant cultivars and for developing suitable strategies to reduce disease. Managing AB of chickpea through resistance breeding has been difficult due to the evolution of new virulent pathotypes of A. rabiei [15]. Loss of resistance in highly AB-resistant chickpea varieties viz., F8 (recommended in 1940–1941), C 1234 (1950–1951) and C 235 (1968), has strongly indicated the emergence of new virulent strains of A. rabiei [16,17]. It is speculated that pathogen populations also evolve to overcome quantitative resistance in agro-ecosystems. However, the nature of evolution against quantitative resistance differs from the evolution against major gene resistance, and is better characterized as a process of “erosion”, rather than a process of “breakdown”. This erosion is difficult to detect because corresponding pathogen populations can display a range of pathogenicity that may vary considerably from year to year as a result of strong genotype by environment (G × E) interactions [18].
Breeding for host resistance is the most effective, efficient and environmentally friendly method to control the disease [19]. However, in pathogens like A. rabiei, monitoring of the plant pathogen population and inclusion of a threshold level of pathogen inoculum for screening of germplasm is a key component. We summarize here the progress made towards understanding variations in A. rabiei populations, genetics of resistance, resistance sources and G × E interactions.

2. Characteristics of AB in Chickpea

The causal agent of AB of chickpea exists both as an anamorph and a teleomorph. The anamorph, A. rabiei, is characterized by the formation of spherical or pear-shaped black fruiting bodies called pycnidia. A pycnidium contains numerous hyaline unicellular and occasionally bicellular spores, pycnidiospores, or conidia, developed on short conidiophores (stalks) embedded in a mucilaginous mass. Pycnidiospores are oval to oblong, straight, or slightly bent at one or both ends and measure 6–12 by 4–6 μm [20,21]. The fungus grows readily on a variety of nutrient media, the best being chickpea meal dextrose agar. A. rabiei generally produces a pale cream colored mycelium in which pale brown to black pycnidia are immersed. Cultures are variable in morphology and color, with isolates often producing a prevalence of unicellular conidia [22].
The teleomorph, Didymella rabiei (Kovacheski) var. Arx (Syn. Mycosphaerella rabiei Kovacheski), is a bipolar heterothallic ascomycete and is characterized by pseudothecia developing on chickpea crop residues that have over-wintered in the field. Pseudothecia are dark brown to black, subglobose, 120–270 μm in diameter, erupting from the host tissue and without a conspicuous ostiole. Binucleate asci are cylindrical to subclavate surrounded by paraphyses and contain eight hyaline unequally bicellular ascospores. Ascospores are ellipsoid to biconic with a constriction at the septum and measure 9.5–16 by 4.5–7 μm. The life cycle of D. rabiei consists of a single sexual generation per season, which develops on infected over-wintering chickpea debris, followed by several asexual generations during the parasitic phase of the disease cycle [23]. Sexual reproduction is controlled by a single regulatory locus referred to as a mating-type locus and alternate sequences at the mating-type locus are completely dissimilar and code for different regulatory genes. The presence of opposite mating types (MAT1-1 and MAT1-2) and the teleomorph have been reported from some chickpea-growing regions in the world [24,25,26,27,28,29]. The morphological characteristics of A. rabiei and Phoma medicaginis var. pinodella are similar, which makes it difficult to distinguish between the 2 species. However, a PCR test developed by Phan et al. [30] can be used to detect and confirm the identity of A. rabiei.
Symptoms of AB can develop on all aerial parts of a plant. Plants are attacked at any growth stage, depending on the inoculum availability. However, AB is most prominent during the flowering to early podding growth stages. Air-borne conidia and ascospores infect younger leaves and produce small water-soaked necrotic spots that rapidly enlarge and coalesce. Conidia may also be water-borne and splash dispersed to infect foliage tissue on the same or nearby plants. Subsequently, symptoms spread rapidly to all aerial parts including leaves, petioles, flowers, pods, branches, and stems, which leads to rapid collapse of tissues and death of the plant (Figure 1). Development of pycnidia in concentric rings on lesions is the characteristic symptom of A. rabiei infection. Lesions that develop on leaves and pods appear circular with brown margins and a grey center that contains pycnidia, whereas lesions developing on petiole, stems, and branches are elongated. The lesions that develop on apical twigs, branches, and stems differ in size and in later stages girdle the affected plant parts. The regions above the girdled portion are killed and may break off. Diseased pods with visible blight symptoms often fail to develop any seed. Pod infection often leads to seed infection through the testa and cotyledons. Infected seed can be discolored and possess deep, round, or irregular cankers, sometimes bearing pycnidia visible to the naked eye. Infection during the pod maturation stage often results in shrivelled and infected seed [4,31].

3. Pathogen Variability

A. rabiei shows a high degree of pathogenic and genetic variability, and AB-resistant chickpea cultivars have become susceptible in some countries [26,27,28]. The presence of a teleomorph (D. rabiei) in the A. rabiei life cycle contributes to variability within the pathogen population, which may generate a new combination of virulence genes and the development of new pathotypes [11]. In A. rabiei of chickpea, a number of pathotypes were reported; for instance, more than ten pathotypes by Vir and Grewal, [32]; five pathotypes by Nene and Reddy, [1] and three pathotypes by Udupa et al. [33]. Udupa et al. [33] reported the occurrence of three pathotypes; pathotype I (less aggressive), pathotype II (aggressive) and pathotype III (most aggressive) as revealed by molecular markers [26,34,35,36]. A new A. rabiei pathotype (pathotype IV) was reported in Syria that is capable of affecting the highly resistant chickpea genotypes (ICC-12004 and ICC-3996) known for their resistance to pathotypes I, II and III. Breeding materials at ICARDA are being screened against this new pathotype IV, and so far low levels of resistance have been observed [37,38]. High genetic diversity has also been reported from USA, Tunisia and Canada where popular varieties have become susceptible to new aggressive pathotypes [26,27,28]. Microsatellite markers revealed high levels of polymorphism among isolates from Tunisia, Australia, USA, Turkey, Pakistan, Syria and India [26,27,35,39,40,41]. Further, very little information about A. rabiei is available at the genomic level. Recently, Fondevilla et al. [42] reported a comprehensive A. rabiei transcriptome and identified several putative pathogenicity factors specifically induced during infection.
Mating type distribution is one of the important factors that contributes to variation in any pathogen population. The MAT-specific markers have been used in rapid determination of mating type ratios in A. rabiei populations and detection of introduction of a second mating type into an area [25,26,41]. Further, MAT genes have been proposed as potentially useful regions of the genome for phylogenetic reconstruction and genetic variability studies [43,44]. MAT genes appear to evolve more quickly than other regions of the genome but are highly conserved within species, making them useful for phylogenetic analysis of closely related species [43,44,45]. The mating type distribution of A. rabiei has not been thoroughly determined, although it is assumed that A. rabiei ascospores from the sexual stage represent recombinant progeny that could contribute to increased genotypic diversity in A. rabiei populations. This variation is potentially adaptive, allowing the pathogen to evolve increased virulence on resistant cultivars and/or to develop resistance to fungicides.
Studying the genetic diversity of A. rabiei isolates infecting wild Cicer spp. is very important to compare pathogen movement between wild and cultivated chickpea species. Understanding A. rabiei gene/genotype flow is especially relevant in a country such as Syria that lies in the center of the origin of chickpeas. Comparing the population structure of the pathogens isolated from wild and cultivated chickpeas using DNA markers allow the estimation of gene flow among populations from different hosts and geographic regions [46].

4. Genetic Resources of AB Resistance

Development and use of reliable and repeatable resistance screening techniques to exploit host plant resistance for any disease is a prerequisite. A number of screening techniques under field and controlled environments have been reported for AB as reviewed in Pande et al. [11]. Temperature and relative humidity are critical factors in AB establishment. A high level of relative humidity during the first 24 h post-inoculation period is critical. Growth chambers where relative humidity can be controlled are useful; however, additional steps, such as use of foggers or mist irrigation immediately after inoculation can help maintain relative humidity at high levels and ensure successful infection [10,47]. Spore concentration in the inoculum is also a significant factor, with the ideal level being the lowest spore concentration that causes sufficient disease in a majority of host genotypes. This facilitates the greatest discrimination among the lines in a trial. Screening techniques such as seedling screening and cut twig screening using excised trays are routinely being used to screen chickpea genotypes against AB in the controlled environment growth chamber facility at ICRISAT, Patancheru India [48]. Chen and Muehlbauer [49] developed a mini-dome technique for AB resistance screening and this technique is in use at Pullman, WA, USA. Field screening techniques for AB resistance in chickpea were initially developed by Singh et al. [50] in India. Screening was carried out in areas where the prevailing weather conditions were conducive to the development of disease and preferably where natural inoculum was abundant. The procedure consists of planting susceptible check plants every two or four tested entries, scattering infected plant debris collected in the previous season, maintaining high humidity through sprinkler irrigation, and, if needed, spraying the test entries with a spore suspension of a virulent isolate of A. rabiei. A resistant check/ susceptible was included in order to compare resistance of test entries with that of known resistant material [51]. A positive correlation between a field and controlled environment screening technique for AB was reported by Pande et al. [48].
A number of AB resistant sources have been identified and used in breeding programs although none possessed complete resistance [11,49]. Pande et al. [48] reported 29 lines with resistance to AB and these lines are being exploited in breeding programs at ICRISAT. Most of these AB resistant lines have a wide range of maturity (112–142 days). Breeding for resistance to AB has been a major focus in chickpea breeding programs in many countries, such as India, Syria, Canada, USA, Australia, Turkey and Pakistan [52]. The most widely used sources of resistance have been supplied by ICRISAT, India and ICARDA, Syria (presently at Lebanon). In Australia, the first variety released with a moderate level of resistance to AB was “Howzat” in 2001, and breeders have since selected a number of desi and kabuli lines with higher levels of resistance from ICRISAT and ICARDA breeding lines, as well as existing Australian varieties. Three new AB-resistant varieties (Ambar, Neelam and PBA Striker) have recently been released in Australia (http://www.news.uwa.edu.au/201310256190/business-and-industry/tough-new-varieties-set-revive-profitable-chickpea-industry).
Developing chickpea varieties with high levels of resistance to AB has been a challenging proposition because of the following factors: (i) paucity of high levels of resistance in the primary gene pool; (ii) complex genetic basis of resistance conferred by several quantitative trait loci (QTLs); (iii) a highly variable pathogen population; and (iv) the emergence of new pathotypes due to natural recombination through sexual reproduction in the AB life cycle. Since an adequate level of genetic resistance is not available in the cultivated genotypes, different gene pools of Cicer species such as C. bijugum, C. echinospermum, C. pinnatifidum, C. judaicum and C. montbretii have been exploited for AB resistance. Two C. echinospermum accessions classified as resistant to AB [53] and being cross compatible with C. arietinum, could provide valuable sources of resistance [54] to AB. Wild accessions of C. judiacum such as ATC 46934, ICC 17211, IG 69986, IG 70030, IG 70037 and IG 70038 were reported resistant to AB [55,56,57]. The reaction of few wild species to AB in controlled environment screening at ICRISAT is provided in Table 1. Some wild accessions have shown resistance to more than one stress, for example, ILWC 7-1 of C. bijugum showed resistance to ascochyta blight, fusarium wilt, leaf miner, cyst nematode and cold, and ILWC 33/S-4 of C. pinnatifidum showed resistance to ascochyta blight, fusarium wilt, seed beetle and cyst nematode [46,52]. The feasibility of introgression from the tertiary to the domestic gene pool and access to these novel sources of resistance is an important priority for chickpea breeders [58]. An updated list of resistant cultivars to AB in chickpea is provided in Table 2.

5. Genotype × Environment and AB Interactions

Genotype × environment (G × E) interaction is an important component in breeding for disease resistance because pathogens may vary in their aggressiveness under different environments, and thus physiological races may differ across environments. Further, the growth, development and physiological status of host genotypes may change across environments. G × E interaction studies are very useful in identifying stability of genotypes across environments. There is a paucity of information regarding the G × E and AB interaction in chickpea. Pande et al. [69] identified five genotypes with consistant resistant reaction to AB (EC 516934, ICCV 04537, ICCV 98818, EC 516850 and EC 516971) using the genotype and genotype × environment (GGE) biplot analyses of multi-environment data. Multi-environment testing revealed not only significant genotypic effects but also significant effects of the environment and the G × E interaction for AB severity. Significant G × E was expected as AB in chickpea is largely affected by environment [75,76]. However, Chandirasekaran et al. [66] observed the relative ranks of varieties in all site-years for leaf area under the disease progression curve (LAUDPC) and the stem area under the disease progression curve (SAUDPC), and means of the pod disease ratings (POD) did not vary significantly in the absence of cross-over interactions. GGE biplot analysis has been widely used in recent years to determine the stability of disease resistance through multi-location trials in order to identify stable resistant genotypes [77,78].

6. Inheritance and Marker Assisted Breeding for AB Resistance

Classical genetic studies of AB resistance have shown it to be governed by a single dominant gene [79,80,81,82]. Few studies had conferred AB through the combination of a recessive and a dominant gene [83]. Details of the genetic basis of host pathogen interactions have been provided by Pande et al. [11,51]. In the recent study conducted by Labdi et al. on the inheritance of resistance to race 4 of A. rabiei on 15 chickpea accessions, resistance was reported to be governed in different genotypes by a single recessive gene, two recessive complementary genes, two dominant complementary genes and two recessive genes with epistasis interaction [84]. Resistance in ILC 3279, ILC 3856 and ILC 4421 was controlled either by three recessive genes or two recessive duplicated genes, and in ILC 72, ILC 182 and ILC 187, resistance was polygenic in nature.
In terms of molecular mapping, a considerable number of QTLs have been identified in many studies with respect to several linkage groups (LG 2, 3, 4, 6, and 8) for AB resistance [85]. Two major QTLs on LG 2, close to the GA16 and TA37 loci control resistance to A. rabiei pathotype I [86]. Two QTLs for pathotype II is located on LG 4, one is linked to CaETR or GAA47 and the other is linked to TA72/ScY17 [10,86,87]. Cho et al. [86] identified an additional SSR marker (TA46) located on LG 2 that was strongly associated with the resistance derived from FLIP 84-92C to Pathotype II. This marker explained between 59 and 69% of the variations for resistance using different isolates under controlled environments. Furthermore, loci TS12b and STMS28 on LG 1, TS45 and TA3b on LG 2, were significantly associated with the disease reaction under controlled environments [88,89]. Bian et al. [90] compared three chickpea LGs, harbouring six QTLs conditioning resistance against A. rabiei with the most comprehensive chickpea map (W-Ca-LG) and found that QTL1 (LG 3) was located in the subcentromere region of the chickpea W-Ca-LG3 (chromosome C). QTL2and QTL3 (LG 8) were located on the long arm of the W-Ca-LG8 (chromosome H) and QTL4, QTL5 and QTL6 (LG 4) were located in the subcentromere region of the W-Ca-LG4 (chromosome B). However, the majority of AB-resistance QTLs were reported mainly on two LG, CaLG02 and CaLG04. For instance, AB resistance QTL ar1(LG 2) and ar2a (LG 2), identified by Udupa and Baum, [10], and QTLAR3 identified by Iruela et al. [91], are present in the same genomic region mainly flanked by GA16 and TA110 (LG 2) markers on CaLG02. The QTLs present in this genomic region confer resistance to both Pathotype I and II of A. rabiei and contribute up to 20% phenotypic variation. More recently, Hamwieh et al. [92] identified 14 microsatellite markers that were linked to seven QTLs for A. rabiei resistance (Ar2a, Ar2c, Ar3c, Ar4a, Ar4b, Ar6b and Ar8a) on the five chickpea linkage groups (LG 2, LG 3, LG 4, LG 6 and LG 8). Madrid et al. [93] also reported development of a co-dominant marker (CaETR) based on allele sequence length polymorphism in an ethylene response gene located in the QTLAR1 region (LG 4). Varshney et al. [94] developed a physical map of chickpea, locating an AB-resistance QTL region. Among 306 genes, genes like the BED finger-nbs resistance protein and the gene with a leucine-rich repeat domain were typically involved in host resistance mechanisms, such as DNA-directed RNA polymerase subunit beta, receptor-like protein kinase and Ser-Thr protein kinase. Further, this region also harbors the NAC domain protein for systemic acquired resistance as well as the NB-LRR-type disease resistance protein. In summary, QTLs contributing to A. rabiei (Ar) resistance were identified by many research groups—14 Ar loci located on eight chickpea LGs, named as Ar1a, Ar2a, Ar2b, Ar2c, Ar3a, Ar3b, Ar3c, Ar4a, Ar4b, Ar5a, Ar6a, Ar6b, Ar7a, and Ar8a [10,82,86,88,89,92,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102]. These markers will be important for enabling the pyramiding of resistance genes from diverse sources to reduce the time required to generate resistant cultivars. An updated list of QTLs and markers identified for AB is provided in Table 3.
Mapping of important QTL/genes responsible for AB resistance for molecular breeding in chickpea has been considered an important input for present day breeding programs. The strategies for molecular breeding of complex traits such as AB resistance can be taken further by selecting the QTL in segregating progeny [108]. One strategic approach is to simultaneously monitor restoration of the genetic background with QTL introgression and select progeny with recombination events in critical chromosome positions, known as marker-assisted backcrossing (MABC). MABC aims at conversion of targeted lines with respect to one or two traits without disturbing all other native traits of the target cultivar [109]. The MABC has been successfully employed recently to introgress AB resistance with double-podding traits in chickpea cultivars CDC Xena, CDC Leader, and FLIP98-135C [110], and a QTL-hotspot containing QTLs for root traits and abiotic stress tolerance in JG 11, a leading chickpea cultivar from India [111]. Varshney et al. [112] demonstrated the use of MABC to develop superior lines resistant to AB. To develop resistant lines, two QTL regions for AB, ABQTL-I and ABQTL-II, were targeted for introgression. Foreground selection with eight markers linked to QTL regions was used for selection of plants with desirable alleles in different segregating generations. In addition to the foreground, back-ground selection was performed for selection of plants with high recurrent parent genome recovery, with evenly distributed 40 SSR markers. After three backcrosses and three rounds of selfing, 14 MAB lines were generated for AB [112]. Phenotyping of these lines has identified seven resistance lines for AB.
Although the use of marker assisted selection (MAS) is mostly straightforward for manipulating single-gene traits, its potential for breeding complex traits has also been recognized [113,114]. However, it should be noted that the use of markers for polygenic trait improvement remains difficult, with few success stories reported to date [115,116]. For instance, Castro et al. [107] reported the usefulness of allele specific markers (CaETR and GAA47) for MAS and also reported that markers TA72 and SCY17 could be useful for MAS but the high distorted segregation towards the susceptible parent in the region where these markers are located could explain their low effectiveness. Bouhadida et al. [117] also used one allele specific marker (CaETR) and one codominant SCAR17590 marker and reported that these two markers contributed efficiently to the selection of new chickpea varieties with better combinations of alleles to ensure durable resistance to AB.

7. Conclusions

Considerable progress has been made in the last decade in understanding the AB pathogen and its genetics of resistance in chickpea. Resistance to AB has been found in chickpea and breeding for resistance is making progress by identifying new resistance genes. Molecular tools are being integrated with conventional breeding approaches to speed up the process of introgressing genes into chickpea elite genotypes. Molecular markers associated with major QTLs conferring resistance to AB have been located on linkage maps, and these markers can be used for efficient pyramiding of the traits of interest. Stability, effectiveness, and usefulness of the recently introgressed and pyramided resistances remain to be determined across greenhouse and field environments against A. rabiei isolates of varying aggressiveness and their deployment in cultivar development. Efforts, therefore, need to continue to combine high levels of AB resistance with other desirable traits for incorporation into future releases as promising cultivars of different market classes of chickpea in AB-prone environments.

Acknowledgments

The author is thankful to several colleagues at ICRISAT and collaborators from many NARS programs from India. The work reported in this article was undertaken as a part of the CGIAR Research Program on Grain Legumes. ICRISAT is a member of the CGIAR.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

  1. Nene, Y.L.; Reddy, M.V. Chickpea diseases and their control. In The Chickpea; Saxena, M.C., Singh, K.B., Eds.; CABI: Oxon, UK, 1987; pp. 233–270. [Google Scholar]
  2. Kaiser, W.J.; Muehlbauer, F.J. An outbreak of ascochyta blight of chickpea in the Pacific Northwest, USA. Intl. Chickpea News Lett. 1989, 18, 16–17. [Google Scholar]
  3. International Centre for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA). Field Survey of Chickpea Diseases. In Legume Annual Report; ICARDA: Aleppo, Syria, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  4. Akem, C.N. Ascochyta blight of chickpea: Present status and future priorities. Int. J. Pest Manag. 1999, 45, 131–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Khan, M.S.A.; Ramsey, M.D.; Corbiere, R.; Infantino, A.; Porta-Puglia, A.; Bouznad, Z.; Scott, E.S. Ascochyta blight of chickpea in Australia: Identification, pathogenicity and mating type. Plant Pathol. 1999, 48, 230–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Kaiser, W.J.; Ramsey, M.D.; Makkouk, K.M.; Bretag, T.W.; Acikgoz, N.; Kumar, J.; Nutter, F.W. Foliar diseases of cool season food legumes and their control. In Linking Research and Marketing Opportunities for Pulses in the 21st Century; Knight, R., Ed.; Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2000; pp. 437–455. [Google Scholar]
  7. Chongo, G.; Buchwaldt, L.; Gossen, B.D.; Lafond, G.P.; May, W.E.; Johnson, E.N.; Hogg, T. Foliar fungicides to manage ascochyta blight (Ascochyta rabiei) of chickpea in Canada. Can. J. Plant Pathol. 2003, 25, 135–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Singh, G.; Singh, K.; Kapoor, S. Screening for sources of resistance to Ascochyta blight of chickpea. Int. Chickpea Newsl. 1982, 6, 15–17. [Google Scholar]
  9. Singh, G.; Verma, M.M.; Gill, A.S.; Sandhu, T.S.; Brar, H.S.; Sra, S.S.; Kapoor, S. Screening of gram varieties against Ascochyta blight. Crop Improv. 1984, 11, 153–154. [Google Scholar]
  10. Udupa, S.M.; Baum, M. Genetic dissection of pathotypespecific resistance to Ascochyta blight disease in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) using microsatellite markers. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2003, 106, 1196–1202. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  11. Pande, S.; Siddique, K.H.M.; Kishore, G.K.; Bayaa, B.; Gaur, P.M.; Gowda, C.L.L.; Bretag, T.W.; Crouch, J.H. Ascochyta blight of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.): A review of biology, pathogenicity and disease management. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 2005, 56, 317–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Bhardwaj, R.; Sandhu, J.S.; Kaur, L.; Gupta, S.K.; Gaur, P.M.; Varshney, R.K. Genetics of Ascochyta blight resistance in chickpea. Euphytica 2010, 171, 337–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Kostrinski, J. Problems in Chickpea Cultivation and Grain Crop Rotation in Israel; Special publication No. 34; Agriculture Research Organization, Volcani Centre: Bet Dagan, Israel, 1974; (In Hebrew, English summary). [Google Scholar]
  14. Singh, K.B.; Malhotra, R.S.; Saxena, M.C.; Bejiga, G. Superiority of winter sowing over traditional spring sowing of chickpea in the Mediterranean region. Agron. J. 1997, 89, 112–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Singh, K.B.; Reddy, M.V. Advances in disease resistance breeding in chickpea. Adv. Agron. 1991, 45, 191–222. [Google Scholar]
  16. Bedi, K.S.; Athwal, D.S. C 235 is the answer to blight. Indian Fmg. 1962, 12, 20–22. [Google Scholar]
  17. Nene, Y.L.; Mengistu, A.; Sinclair, J.B.; Royse, D.J. An Annotated Bibliography of Chickpea Diseases 1915–1976. Australas. Plant Pathol. 1978, 7, 25–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. McDonald, B.A.; Linde, C. Pathogen population genetics, evolutionary potential, and durable resistance. Ann. Rev. Phytopathol. 2002, 40, 349–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Li, H.; Rodda, M.; Gnanasambandam, A.; Aftab, M.; Redden, R.; Hobson, K.; Rosewarne, G.; Materne, M.; Kaur, S.; Slater, A.T. Breeding for biotic stress resistance in chickpea: Progress and prospects. Euphytica 2015, 204, 257–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Punithalingam, E.; Holliday, P. Ascochyta rabiei. In Descriptions of Pathogenic Fungi and Bacteria; Commonwealth Mycological Institute: Kew, UK, 1972; Volume 34, p. 337. [Google Scholar]
  21. Nene, Y.L. A review of Ascochyta blight of chickpea. Trop. Pest Manag. 1982, 28, 61–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. CAB International. Crop Protection Compendium; CAB International: Wallingford, UK, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  23. Trapero-Casas, A.; Navas-Cortes, J.A.; Jimenez-Diaz, R.M. Airborne ascospores of Didymella rabiei as a major primary inoculum for Ascochyta blight epidemics in chickpea crops in southern Spain. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 1996, 102, 237–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Armstrong, C.L.; Chongo, G.; Gossen, B.D.; Duczek, L.J. Mating type distribution and incidence of the teleomorph of Ascochyta rabiei (Didymella rabiei) in Canada. Can. J. Plant Pathol. 2001, 23, 110–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Barve, M.P.; Arie, T.; Salimath, S.; Muehlbauer, F.J.; Peever, T.L. Cloning and characterization of the mating type (MAT) locus from Ascochyta rabiei (teleomorph: Didymella rabiei) and a MAT phylogeny of legume-associated Ascochyta spp. Fungal Genet. Biol. 2003, 39, 151–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Peever, T.L.; Salimath, S.S.; Su, G.; Kaiser, W.J.; Muehlbauer, J. Historical and contemporary multilocus population structure of Ascochyta rabiei (teleomorph: Didymella rabiei) in the Pacific Northwest of the United States. Mol. Ecol. 2004, 13, 291–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Rhaiem, A.; Chérif, M.; Peever, T.L.; Dyer, P.S. Population structure and mating system of Ascochyta rabiei in Tunisia: Evidence for the recent introduction of mating type 2. Plant Pathol. 2008, 57, 540–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Vail, S.; Banniza, S. Molecular variability and mating-type of Ascochyta rabiei of chickpea from Saskatchewan, Canada. Aust. J. Plant Pathol. 2009, 38, 392–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Atik, O.; Baum, M.; El-Ahmed, A.; Ahmed, S.; Abang, M.M.; Yabrak, M.M.; Murad, S.; Kabbabeh, S.; Hamwieh, A. Chickpea Ascochyta blight: Disease status and pathogen mating type distribution in Syria. J. Phytopathol. 2011, 159, 443–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Phan, H.T.T.; Ford, R.; Bretag, T.W.; Taylor, P.W.J. A rapid and sensitive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay for detection of Ascochyta rabiei, the cause of ascochyta blight of chickpea. Australas. Plant Pathol. 2002, 31, 31–39. [Google Scholar]
  31. Singh, G.; Sharma, Y.R. Ascochyta blight of chickpea. In IPM System in Agriculture: Pulses; Upadhyay, R.K., Mukherji, K.G., Eds.; Aditya Books Pvt. Ltd.: New Delhi, India, 1998; pp. 163–195. [Google Scholar]
  32. Vir, S.; Grewal, J.S. Physiological specialization in Ascochyta rabiei, the causal organism of gram blight. Indian Phytopathol. 1974, 27, 265–266. [Google Scholar]
  33. Udupa, S.M.; Weigand, F.; Saxena, M.C.; Kahl, G. Genotyping with RAPD and microsatellite markers resolves pathotype diversity in the Ascochyta blight pathogen of chickpea. Theor. Appl. Genet. 1998, 97, 299–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Vail, S.; Banniza, S. Structure and pathogenic variability in Ascochyta rabiei populations on chickpea in the Canadian prairies. Plant Pathol. 2008, 57, 665–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Varshney, R.; Pande, S.; Kannan, S.; Mahendar, T.; Sharma, M.; Gaur, P.; Hoisington, D. Assessment and comparison of AFLP and SSR based molecular genetic diversity in Indian isolates of Ascochyta rabiei, a causal agent of Ascochyta blight in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Mycol. Prog. 2009, 8, 87–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Atik, O.; Ahmed, S.; Abang, M.M.; Imtiaz, M.; Hamwieh, A.; Baum, M.; El-Ahmed, A.; Murad, S.; Yabrak, M.M. Pathogenic and genetic diversity of Didymella rabiei affecting chickpea in Syria. Crop Prot. 2013, 46, 70–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Imtiaz, M.; Abang, M.M.; Malhotra, R.S.; Ahmed, S.; Bayaa, B.; Udupa, S.M.; Baum, M. Pathotype IV, a new and highly virulent pathotype of Didymella rabiei, causing Ascochyta blight in chickpea in Syria. Plant Dis. 2011, 95, 1192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Bayaa, B.; Udupa, S.M.; Baum, M.; Malhotra, R.S.; Kabbabeh, S. Pathogenic variability in Syrian isolates of Ascochyta rabiei. In Proceedings of the 5th European Conference on Grain Legumes, Dijon, France, 7–11 June 2004.
  39. Geistlinger, J.; Weising, K.; Winter, P.; Kahl, G. Locus-specific microsatellite markers for the fungal chickpea pathogen Didymella rabiei (anamorph) Ascochyta rabiei. Mol. Ecol. 2000, 9, 1919–1952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Phan, H.T.T.; Ford, R.; Taylor, P.W.J. Population structure of Ascochyta rabiei in Australia based on STMS fingerprints. Fungal Divers. 2003, 13, 111–129. [Google Scholar]
  41. Bayraktar, H.; Dolar, F.S.; Tör, M. Determination of genetic diversity within Ascochyta rabiei (Pass.) Labr. the cause of Ascochyta blight of chickpea in Turkey. J. Plant Pathol. 2007, 89, 341–347. [Google Scholar]
  42. Fondevilla, S.; Krezdorn, N.; Rotter, B.; Kahl, G.; Winter, P. In planta Identification of Putative Pathogenicity Factors from the Chickpea Pathogen Ascochyta rabiei by De novo Transcriptome Sequencing Using RNA-Seq and Massive Analysis of cDNA Ends. Front. Microbiol. 2015, 6, 1329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Turgeon, B.G. Application of mating type gene technology to problems in fungal biology. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 1998, 36, 115–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Turgeon, B.G.; Berbee, M.L. Evolution of pathogenic and reproductive strategies in Cochliobolus and related genera. In Molecular Genetics of Host-Specific Toxins in Plant Disease; Kohmoto, K., Yoder, O.C., Eds.; Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1998; pp. 153–163. [Google Scholar]
  45. Poeggeler, S. Phylogenetic relationships between mating-type sequences from homothallic and heterothallic ascomycetes. Curr. Genet. 1999, 36, 222–231. [Google Scholar]
  46. Singh, K.B.; Malhotra, R.S.; Halila, M.H.; Knights, E.J.; Verma, M.M. Current status and future strategy in breeding chickpea for resistance to biotic and abiotic stresses. Euphytica 1994, 73, 137–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Chen, W.; Mcphee, K.E.; Muehlbauer, F.J. Use of a mini-dome bioassay and grafting to study resistance of chickpea to ascochyta blight. J. Phytopathol. 2005, 153, 579–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Pande, S.; Sharma, M.; Gaur, P.M.; Tripathi, S.; Kaur, L.; Basandarai, A.; Khan, T.; Gowda, C.L.L.; Siddique, K.H.M. Development of screening techniques and identification of new sources of resistance to Ascochyta blight disease of chickpea. Australas. Plant Pathol. 2011, 40, 149–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Chen, W.; Muehlbauer, F.J. An improved technique for virulence assay of Ascochyta rabiei on chickpea. Int. Chickpea Pigeonpea Newsl. 2003, 10, 31–33. [Google Scholar]
  50. Singh, K.B.; Hawtin, G.C.; Nene, Y.L.; Reddy, M.V. Resistance in chickpeas to Ascochyta rabiei. Plant Dis. 1981, 65, 586–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Pande, S.; Sharma, M.; Gaur, P.M.; Gowda, C.L.L. Host Plant Resistance to Ascochyta Blight of Chickpea; Information Bulletin No 82; International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics: Patancheru, India, 2010; p. 40. [Google Scholar]
  52. Ahmad, F.; Gaur, P.M.; Croser, J. Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). In Genetic Resources, Chromosome Engineering and Crop Improvement; Singh, R.J., Jauhar, P.P., Eds.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2005; pp. 187–217. [Google Scholar]
  53. Collard, B.; Ades, P.; Pang, E.; Brouwer, J.; Taylor, P. Prospecting for sources of resistance to ascochyta blight in wild Cicer species. Australas. Plant Pathol. 2001, 30, 271–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Ahmad, F.; Slinkard, A.E. The extent of embryo and endosperm growth following interspecific hybridization between Cicer arietinum L. and related annual wild species. Genet. Resour. Crop Evol. 2004, 51, 765–772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Nguyen, T.T.; Taylor, P.W.J.; Redden, R.J.; Ford, R. Genetic diversity in Cicer using AFLP analysis. Plant Breed. 2004, 123, 173–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Pande, S.; Kishore, G.K.; Upadhyaya, H.D.; Narayana Rao, J. Identification of sources of multiple disease resistance in mini-core collection of chickpea. Plant Dis. 2006, 90, 1214–1218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Pande, S.; Ramgopal, D.; Kishore, G.K.; Mallikarjuna, N.; Sharma, M.; Pathak, M.; Narayana Rao, J. Evaluation of wild Cicer species for resistance to Ascochyta blight and Botrytis grey mold in controlled environment at ICRISAT, Patancheru, India. J. Sat. Agric. Res. 2006, 2, 1–3. [Google Scholar]
  58. Mallikarjuna, N. Ovule and embryo culture to obtain hybrids from interspecific incompatible pollinations in chickpea. Euphytica 1999, 110, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Iqbal, S.M.; Hussain, S.; Bakhsh, A.; Bashir, M. Sources of resistance in chickpea against ascochyta blight disease. Int. J. Agri. Biol. 2002, 4, 488–490. [Google Scholar]
  60. Dubey, S.C.; Singh, B. Evaluation of chickpea genotypes against Ascochyta blight. Indian Phytopath. 2003, 56, 505. [Google Scholar]
  61. Chen, W.; Coyne, T.C.J.; Peever, T.L.; Muehlbauer, F.J. Characterization of chickpea differentials for pathogenicity assay of Ascochyta blight and identification of chickpea accessions resistant to Didymella rabiei. Plant Pathol. 2004, 53, 759–769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Malik, S.R.; Iqbal, S.M.; Iqbal, U.; Ahmad, I.; Haqqani, A.M. Response of Chickpea Lines to Ascochyta rabiei at Two Growing Stages. Caspian J. Env. Sci. 2005, 3, 173–177. [Google Scholar]
  63. Shokouhifar, F.; Bagheri, A.A.R.; Rastgar, F.M. Identification of resistant chickpea lines against pathotypes causing ascochyta blight disease in Iran. Iranian J. Biol. 2006, 19, 29–42. [Google Scholar]
  64. Rubio, J.; Moreno, M.T.; Moral, A.; Rubiales, D.; Gil, J. Registration of RIL58-ILC72/Cr5, a chickpea germplasm line with rust and Ascochyta blight resistance. Crop Sci. 2006, 46, 2331–2332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Ilyas, M.B.; Chaudhry, M.A.; Javed, N.; Ghazanfar, M.U.; Khan, M.A. Sources of resistance in chickpea germplasm against ascochyta blight. Pak. J. Bot. 2007, 39, 1843–1847. [Google Scholar]
  66. Chandirasekaran, R.; Warkentin, T.D.; Gan, Y.; Shirtliffe, S.; Gossen, B.D.; Taran, B.; Banniza, S. Improved sources of resistance to ascochyta blight in chickpea. Can. J. Plant Sci. 2009, 89, 107–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Iqbal, S.M.; Ali, S.; Ghafoor, A. Development of resistance in chickpea to Ascochyta blight. Mycopath. 2010, 8, 61–64. [Google Scholar]
  68. Kaur, l.; Sandhu, J.S.; Malhotra, R.S.; Imtiaz, M.; Sirari, A. Sources of stable resistance to Ascochyta blight in exotic kabuli chickpea. J. Food Legumes 2012, 25, 79–80. [Google Scholar]
  69. Pande, S.; Sharma, M.; Gaur, P.M.; Basandrai, A.K.; Kaur, L.; Hooda, K.S.; Basandrai, D.; Kiran Babu, T.; Jain, S.K.; Rathore, A. Biplot analysis of genotype × environment interactions and identification of stable sources of resistance to Ascochyta blight in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Australas. Plant Pathol. 2013, 42, 561–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Benzohra, I.E.; Bendahmane, B.S.; Labdi, M.; Benkada, M.Y. Sources of Resistance in Chickpea Germplasm to Three Pathotypes of Ascochyta rabiei (Pass.) Labr. In Algeria. World Appl. Sci. J. 2013, 21, 873–878. [Google Scholar]
  71. Kimurto, P.K.; Towett, B.K.; Mulwa, R.S.; Njogu, N.; Jeptanui, L.J.; Rao, G.N.V.P.R.; Silim, S.; Kaloki, P.; Korir, P.; Macharia, J.K. Evaluation of chickpea genotypes for resistance to Ascochyta blight (Ascochyta rabiei) disease in the dry highlands of Kenya. Phytopathol. Mediterr. 2013, 52, 212–221. [Google Scholar]
  72. Ahmad, S.; Khan, M.A.; Sahi, S.T.; Ahmad, R. Evaluation of chickpea germplasm against Ascochyta rabiei (pass) lab. J. Animal Plant Sci. 2013, 23, 440–443. [Google Scholar]
  73. Duzdemir, O.; Selvi, B.; Yanar, Y.; Yildirimi, A. Sources of resistance in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) land races against Ascochyta rabiei causal agent of ascochyta blight disease. Pak. J. Bot. 2014, 46, 1479–1483. [Google Scholar]
  74. Benzohra, I.E.; Bendahmane, B.S.; Benkada, M.Y.; Labdi, M. Screening of 15 chickpea germplasm accessions for resistance to Ascochyta rabiei in North West of Algeria. American-Eurasian J. Agric. Environ. Sci. 2015, 15, 109–114. [Google Scholar]
  75. Lichtenzveig, J.; Shtienberg, D.; Zhang, H.B.; Bonfil, D.J.; Abbo, S. Biometricanalyses of the inheritance of resistance to Didymella rabiei in chickpea. Phytopathology 2002, 92, 417–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Gan, Y.; Gossen, B.D.; Li, L.; Ford, G.; Banniza, S. Cultivar type, plant population and ascochyta blight in chickpea. Agron. J. 2007, 99, 1463–1470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Rubiales, D.; Avila, C.M.; Sillero, J.C.; Hybl, M.; Narits, L.; Sass, O.; Flores, F. Identification and multi-environment validation of resistance to Ascochyta fabae in faba bean (Vicia faba). Field Crop Res. 2012, 126, 165–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Sharma, M.; Kiran Babu, T.; Gaur, P.M.; Ghosh, R.; Rameshwar, T.; Chaudhary, R.G.; Upadhyay, J.P.; Gupta, Om.; Saxena, D.R.; Kaur, L.; et al. Identification and multi-environment validation of resistance to Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. Ciceris in chickpea. Field Crop Res. 2012, 135, 82–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Hafiz, A.; Ashraf, M. Studies on inheritance of resistance to Mycosphaerella blight in gram. Phytopathology 1953, 43, 580–581. [Google Scholar]
  80. Vir, S.; Grewal, J.S.; Gupta, V.P. Inheritance of resistance to Ascochyta blight in chickpea. Euphytica 1975, 24, 209–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Eser, D. Heritability of Some Important Plant Characters, Their Relationships with Plant Yield and Inheritance of Ascochyta Blight Resistance in Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.); Ankara University, Faculty of Agriculture Publications No. 620: Ankara, Turkey, 1976. [Google Scholar]
  82. Taleei, A.; Kanouni, H.; Baum, M. Genetical analysis of ascochyta blight resistance in chickpea. In Bioscience and Biotechnology, Communications in Computer and Information Science; Slezak, D., Arsalan, T., et al., Eds.; Springer-Verlag: Berlin, Germany, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  83. Singh, K.B.; Reddy, M.V. Inheritance of resistance to ascochyta blight in chickpea. Crop Sci. 1983, 23, 9–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Labdi, M.; Malhotra, R.S.; Benzohra, I.E.; Imtiaz, M. Inheritance of resistance to Ascochyta rabiei in 15 chickpea germplasm accessions. Plant Breed. 2013, 132, 197–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Varshney, R.K.; Mohan, S.M.; Gaur, P.M.; Gangarao, N.V.P.R.; Pandey, M.K.; Bohra, A.; Sawargaonkar, S.L.; Chitikineni, A.; Kimurto, P.K.; Janila, P.; et al. Achievements and prospects of genomics-assisted breeding in three legume crops of the semi-arid tropics. Biotechnol. Adv. 2013, 3, 1120–1134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  86. Cho, S.; Chen, W.; Muehlbauer, F.J. Pathotype-specific genetic factors in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) for quantitative resistance to Ascochyta blight. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2004, 109, 733–739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Winter, P.; Benko-Iseppon, A.M.; Hüttel, B.; Ratnaparkhe, M.; Tullu, A.; Sonnante, G.; Pfaff, T.; Tekeoglu, M.; Santra, D.; Sant, V.J.; et al. A linkage map of the chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) genome based on recombinant inbred lines from a C. arietinum × C. reticulatum cross: localization of resistance genes for Fusarium wilt races 4 and 5. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2000, 101, 1155–1163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Flandez-Galvez, H.; Ford, R.; Pang, E.C.K.; Taylor, P.W.J. An intraspecific linkage map of the chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) genome based on sequence-tagged microsatellite site and resistance gene analog markers. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2003, 106, 1447–1456. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  89. Flandez-Galvez, H.; Ades, R.; Ford, R.; Pang, E.; Taylor, P. QTL analysis for ascochyta blight resistance in an intraspecific population of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Theor. Appl. Genet. 2003, 107, 1257–1265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Bian, X.Y.; Ford, R.; Han, T.R.; Coram, T.E.; Pang, E.C.K.; Taylor, P.W.J. Approaching chickpea quantitative trait loci conditioning resistance to Ascochyta rabiei via comparative genomics. Australas. Plant Path. 2007, 36, 419–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Iruela, M.; Castro, P.; Rubio, J.; Cubero, J.I.; Jacinto, C.; Millan, T.; Gil, J. Validation of a QTL for resistance to Ascochyta blight linked to resistance to Fusarium wilt race 5 in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2007, 119, 29–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Hamwieh, A.; Imtiaz, M.; Hobson, K.; Kemal, S.A. Genetic diversity of microsatellite alleles located at quantitative resistance loci for Ascochyta blight resistance in a global collection of chickpea germplasm. Phytopathol. Mediterr. 2013, 52, 191–199. [Google Scholar]
  93. Madrid, E.; Chen, W.; Rajesh, P.N.; Castro, P.; Millan, T.; Gil, J. Allele-specific amplification for the detection of Ascochyta blight resistance in chickpea. Euphytica 2013, 189, 183–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Varshney, R.K.; Mir, R.R.; Bhatia, S.; Thudi, M.; Hu, Y.; Azam, S.; Zhang, Y.; Jaganathan, D.; You, F.M.; Gao, J.; et al. Integrated physical, genetic and genome map of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Funct. Integr. Genomics 2014, 14, 59–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Tekeoglu, M.; Rajesh, P.N.; Muehlbauer, F.J. Integration of sequence tagged microsatellite sites to the chickpea genetic map. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2002, 105, 847–854. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  96. Iruela, M.; Rubio, J.; Barro, F.; Cubero, J.I.; Millan, T.; Gil, J. Detection of two quantitative trait loci for resistance to Ascochyta blight in an intra-specific cross of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.): Development of SCAR markers associated with resistance. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2006, 112, 278–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Lichtenzveig, J.; Bonfil, D.J.; Zhang, H.B.; Shtienberg, D.; Abbo, S. Mapping quantitative trait loci in chickpea associated with time to flowering and resistance to Didymella rabiei the causal agent of Ascochyta blight. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2006, 113, 1357–1369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Tar'an, B.; Warkentin, T.D.; Tullu, A.; Vanderberg, A. Genetic mapping of Ascochyta blight resistance in chickpea (Cicer arietinum) using a simple sequence repeat linkage map. Genome 2007, 50, 26–34. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  99. Anbessa, Y.; Taran, B.; Warkentin, T.D.; Tullu, A.; Vandenberg, A. Genetic analyses and conservation of QTL for Ascochyta blight resistance in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Theor. Appl. Genet. 2009, 4, 757–765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  100. Kottapalli, P.; Gaur, P.M.; Katiyar, S.K.; Crouch, J.H.; Buhariwalla, H.K.; Pande, S.; Gali, K.K. Mapping and validation of QTLs for resistance to an Indian isolate of Ascochyta blight pathogen in chickpea. Euphytica 2009, 165, 79–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Sabbavarapu, M.M.; Sharma, M.; Chamarthi, S.K.; Swapna, N.; Rathore, A.; Thudi, M.; Gaur, P.M.; Pande, S.; Singh, S.; Kaur, L.; et al. Molecular mapping of QTLs for resistance to Fusarium wilt (race 1) and Ascochyta blight in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Euphytica 2013, 93, 121–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  102. Stephens, A.; Lombardi, M.; Cogan, N.O.I.; Forster, J.W.; Hobson, K.; Materne, M.; Kaur, S. Genetic marker discovery, interspecific linkage map construction and quantitative trait locus analysis of ascochyta blight resistance in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Mol. Breed. 2014, 33, 297–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Santra, D.K.; Tekeoglu, M.; Ratnaparkhe, M.; Kaiser, W.J.; Muehlbauer, F.J. Identification and mapping of QTLs conferring resistance to ascochyta blight in chickpea. Crop Sci. 2000, 40, 1606–1612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Cobos, M.J.; Rubio, J.; Strange, R.N.; Moreno, M.T.; Gil, J.; Millan, T. A new QTL for Ascochyta blight resistance in an RIL population derived from an interspecific cross in chickpea. Euphytica 2006, 149, 105–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Kanouni, H.; Taleei, A.; Peyghambari, S.A.; Okhovat, S.M.; Baum, M.; Abang, M. QTL analysis for ascochyta blight resistance in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) using microsatellite markers. J. Agric. Res. 2009, 25, 109–127. [Google Scholar]
  106. Aryamanesh, N.; Nelson, M.N.; Yan, G.; Clarke, H.J.; Siddique, K.H.M. Mapping a major gene for growth habit and QTLs for Ascochyta blight resistance and flowering time in a population between chickpea and Cicer reticulatum. Euphytica 2010, 173, 307–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Castro, P.; Rubio, J.; Madrid, E.; Fernández-Romero, M.D.; Millán, T.; Gil, J. Efficiency of marker-assisted selection for ascochyta blight in chickpea. J. Agric. Sci. 2015, 153, 56–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Gupta, P.K.; Varshney, R.K. The development and use of microsatellite markers for genetic analysis and plant breeding with emphasis on bread wheat. Euphytica 2000, 113, 163–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Varshney, R.K.; Nayak, S.N.; May, G.D.; Jackson, S.A. Next generation sequencing technologies and their implications for crop genetics and breeding. Trends Biotechnol. 2009, 27, 522–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  110. Taran, B.; Warkentin, T.D.; Vandenberg, A. Fast track genetic improvement of Ascochyta blight resistance and double podding in chickpea by marker-assisted backcrossing. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2013, 126, 1639–1647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  111. Collard, B.C.Y.; Pang, E.C.K.; Ades, P.K.; Taylor, P.W.J. Preliminary investigations of QTL associated with seedlings resistance to Ascochyta blight from Cicer echinospermum, a wild relative of chick pea. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2003, 107, 719–729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  112. Varshney, R.K.; Mohan, S.M.; Gaur, P.M.; Chamarthi, S.K.; Singh, V.K.; Srinivasan, S.; Swapna, N.; Sharma, M.; Singh, S.; Kaur, L.; et al. Marker-Assisted Backcrossing to Introgress Resistance to Fusarium Wilt Race 1 and Ascochyta Blight in C 214, an Elite Cultivar of Chickpea. Plant Genome 2014, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Bouchez, A.; Hospital, F.; Causse, M.; Gallais, A.; Charcosset, A. Marker-assisted introgression of favorable alleles at quantitative trait loci between maize elite lines. Genetics 2002, 162, 1945–1959. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  114. Lecomte, L.; Duffé, P.; Buret, M.; Servin, B.; Hospital, F.; Causse, M. Marker-assisted introgression of five QTLs controlling fruit quality traits into three tomato lines revealed interactions between QTLs and genetic backgrounds. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2004, 109, 658–668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  115. Ribaut, J.M.; Hoisington, D. Marker-assisted selection: new tools and strategies. Trends Plant Sci. 1998, 3, 236–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Young, N.D. A cautiously optimistic vision for marker-assisted breeding. Mol. Breeding 1999, 5, 505–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Bouhadida, M.; Benjannet, R.; Madrid, E.; Amri, M.; Kharrat, M. Efficiency of marker-assisted selection in detection of ascochyta blight resistance in Tunisian chickpea breeding lines. Phytopathol. Mediterr. 2013, 52, 202–211. [Google Scholar]
Agronomy 06 00018 g001 1024
Figure 1. Ascochyta blight symptoms on chickpea plant (a) Severe AB infection on all aerial parts (b) Lesions on leaf and pods (c) Lesions on green pods (d) Pycnidial bodies arranged in concentric rings.
Figure 1. Ascochyta blight symptoms on chickpea plant (a) Severe AB infection on all aerial parts (b) Lesions on leaf and pods (c) Lesions on green pods (d) Pycnidial bodies arranged in concentric rings.
Agronomy 06 00018 g001
Table
Table 1. Reaction of wild Cicer species to Ascochyta blight in controlled environment screening at ICRISAT, Patancheru, India.
Table 1. Reaction of wild Cicer species to Ascochyta blight in controlled environment screening at ICRISAT, Patancheru, India.
Wild Cicer SpeciesAccessions ScreenedReaction to Ascochyta Blight Infection *
RMRSHS
C. bijugam30-7203
C. cuneatum3-12-
C. echinospermum4--31
C. judiacum475 **348-
C. pinnatifidum27-13131
C. reticulatum31--1516
C. yamashitae6---6
* Based on the disease score, the wild accessions were categorized for their reaction to Ascochyta blight infection as follows: 1.0–3.0 = resistant (R), 3.1–5.0 = moderately resistant (MR), 5.1–7.0 = susceptible (S) and 7.1–9.0 = highly susceptible (HS). ** ICC 17211, IG 69986, IG 70030, IG 70037 and IG 70038.
Table
Table 2. An updated list of Ascochyta blight-resistant chickpea sources (2000–2015).
Table 2. An updated list of Ascochyta blight-resistant chickpea sources (2000–2015).
Resistance SourceRemarksCountry ReportedYearReferences
FLIP94-90C, FLIP95-68C, FLIP95-47C, FLIP97-132C, FLIP97-227C, FLIP98-224C and FLIP98-231C-Pakistan2002[59]
HOO-108 and GL92024-India2003[60]
PI 559361, PI 559363 and W6 22589Showed a high level of resistance to two pathotypesUSA2004[61]
FLIP98-229C, FLIP82-150C, NCS 950204, NCS 950219, NSC 9903, PaidarxParbat, FLIP 00-20C, FLIP 02-18C, FLIP 02-44C, FLIP 97-120C, FLIP 02-39C and FLIP 97-102CShowed resistance in both green house and fieldPakistan2005[62]
MCC 54, MCC 523, MCC 496, MCC 133, MCC 299, MCC528, MCC 3.11 and MCC 142Two desi accessions and six Kabuli accessions were resistant against six pathotypesIran2006[63]
RIL58-ILC72/Cr5-Spain2006[64]
03039, 03041, 03053, 03115, 03131, 03133, 03143, 03159, 93A-086, 93A-111 and 93A-3354Germplasm linesPakistan2007[65]
FLIP 98-133C and FLIP 98-136CShowed strong resistance to AB on leaves, stems and pods, in addition to having high yieldCanada2009[66]
53628, 53225, 53227, 53230, 53231, 53233, 53235, ,53244, 53380,53436, 53643, 54247, 53045, 53217, 53218, 53323, 53651, 53398Germplasm lines with disease score 1 to 3 at seedling stagePakistan2010[67]
FLIP 97-121CDisease rating ranged from 2 to 3.5.India2012[68]
AmbarDesi chickpea variety that combines early flowering, competitive yieldAustralia2012http://www.heritageseeds.com.au;
EC 516934, ICCV 04537, ICCV 98818, EC 516850 and EC 516971Mean disease severity ≤3.0 on the 1–9 scale and the reactions were consistent in multi-environments India2013[69]
FLIP 4107, FLIP 1025 and FLIP 10511Exhibited highly resistant response against three pathotypesAlgeria2013[70]
ICC7052, ICC4463, ICC4363, ICC2884, ICC7150, ICC15294 and ICC11627-Kenya2013[71]
K-60013, K-98008, D-97092, K-96001, K-96022, D-91055, D-90272, D- 96050, D-Pb2008 and D-Pu502-362-Pakistan2013[72]
10A and 28B-Turkey2014[73]
ILC72, ILC182, ILC187, ILC200 and ILC202Exhibited highly resistant response against three pathotypesAlgeria2015[74]
Table
Table 3. The QTLs or genes identified for chickpea host resistance to Ascochyta blight.
Table 3. The QTLs or genes identified for chickpea host resistance to Ascochyta blight.
Marker/QTLLinkage groupPhenotypic variation (%)References
UBC733b, UBC181a, Dia4LG1, LG650.3 and 45[103]
TS45, TA146, TA130LG1, LG2, LG376 [89]
Ta20, TA72, ar1LG2, LG435.9[10]
GA16, GA24, GAA47, Ta46LG2, LG4, LG669.2[86]
H3C041, TA2LG414.4[97]
H1A12/H1H13, H1G20LG442[97]
H1C092, TA3/H3C11aLG816[97]
OPAI09746, UBC881621LG228.0[104]
TA194LG455.0[96]
TA64, TS54, TA176LG3, LG4, LG656[98]
TR19, TS54LG2, LG448[99]
TA132, TS45LG4, LG838[99]
TA64LG314[99]
TA125, TA72, GA26LG3, LG4, LG646.5[105]
TA34, TA142LG349[106]
STMS11, TAA170LG449[106]
H3D09, H1A12LG449[106]
STMS11, Ta106, CaM0244LG4, LG5, LG641.6[101]
SNP_40000185LG445[102]
TA146, TA72LG459[102]
CaETR, GAA47LG434[107]

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sharma, M.; Ghosh, R. An Update on Genetic Resistance of Chickpea to Ascochyta Blight. Agronomy 2016, 6, 18. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy6010018

AMA Style

Sharma M, Ghosh R. An Update on Genetic Resistance of Chickpea to Ascochyta Blight. Agronomy. 2016; 6(1):18. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy6010018

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sharma, Mamta, and Raju Ghosh. 2016. "An Update on Genetic Resistance of Chickpea to Ascochyta Blight" Agronomy 6, no. 1: 18. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy6010018

APA Style

Sharma, M., & Ghosh, R. (2016). An Update on Genetic Resistance of Chickpea to Ascochyta Blight. Agronomy, 6(1), 18. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy6010018

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop