Journal of Plant Science Current Research Category: Agriculture Type: Research Article

Development of Mungbean yellow mosaic virus Resistant Genotypes in Mungbean through Interspecific Crosses of Wild Vigna Species

Pandiyan M1*, Sivakumar C1, Krishnaveni A2, Paramasivam V3, Karthikeyan A4, Senthil N4, Sudha M4, Arunkumar V3 and Vaithiyalingan M3
1 Agricultural College And Research Institute, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Vazhavachanur, Thiruvannamalai, Tamil Nadu, India
2 Agricultural College And Research Institute, India
3 Agricultural College And Research Institute, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University Vazhavachanur, Thiruvannamalai, Tamil Nadu, India
4 Department Of Plant Molecular Biology And Biotechnology, Centre For Plant Molecular Biology, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, India

*Corresponding Author(s):
Pandiyan M
Agricultural College And Research Institute, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Vazhavachanur, Thiruvannamalai, Tamil Nadu, India
Tel:+ 91 9865173633,
Email:mpandiyan8@yahoo.co.in

Received Date: Apr 27, 2020
Accepted Date: May 28, 2020
Published Date: Jun 04, 2020

Abstract

Mungbean Yellow mosaic disease is a main destructing viral disease in mungbean caused by Mungbean yellow mosaic virus (MYMV) which leads to severe sometime 100 percent yield reduction and it necessitates for developing MYMV resistant lines. The present investigation was carried out with an objective of evolution of MYMV resistant progenies through incorporating wide genes of same genera. An attempt was made between V. radiata x V. umbellata crosses. This agroinoculation technique was employed to examine the F2 individuals, which were derived from a cross between VMGG012-005 (Moderately susceptible) x VGGru1 (resistant homozygous advanced line from Vigna radiata x Vigna umbellata derivative used as MYMV donor) to screen for the MYMV resistant progenies. In the field condition, MYMV infection can be evaluated by MYMV disease rating scale (1-9). Out of the 225, F2 individuals, 48 individuals were identified as resistant to MYMV and subjected to agroinoculation. The two tandem viral constructs of MYMV, VA 221 (KA30 DNA A + KA22 DNA B) and VA 239 (RA30 DNA A + KA27 DNA B) mobilized in Agrobacterium tumefaciens strains Ach 5 and C 58 were used for Agroinoculation. The results shows that among the 48 individuals, only ten individuals namely Resplant3, Resplant6, Resplant7, Resplant9, Resplant13, Resplant19, Resplant25, Resplant37, Resplant40 and  Resplant43 showed resistance to VA 221 and the same entries found to be susceptible to VA239 strain. The all 48 entries again raised as F3 generation in next season in the field it showed resistant to MYMV. Other 177 individuals are susceptible to both strains, VA 221 and VA 239. All these field resistant individuals are forwarded to further generations and confirmed for resistance in field condition. In F3 generation only ten genotypes which was showed resistance for VA221.

Keywords

Agroinoculation; Drought tolerant; Mungbean; Mungbean yellow mosaic virus resistant lines; Short duration; Summer season; VMG012-005

INTRODUCTION

Mungbean (Vigna radiata L.) is an important pulse crop in developing countries of Asia especially India, China, Japan , Myanmar and other countries and Latin America where it is consumed as dry seeds, fresh green pods [1]. Mungbean serves as vital source of vegetable protein (19.1-28.3%), mineral (0.18-0.21%) and vitamins. It is a native of India -Burma and is cultivated extensively in Asia [2]. India is the leading mungbean cultivating country, for mungbean improvement research has elaborately  taken by mungbean breeders in India with covers up to 55% of the total area [3]. The World acreage and 45% of total production [4]. Among the biotic sources plant viruses are responsible for a significant proportion of crop disease [5]. It causes serious economic losses in many major crops by reducing economic part like seed yield and quality [6]. Mungbean yellow mosaic virus Disease (MYMV) is reported to be the most destructive viral disease among the various viral diseases, caused by Mungbean yellow mosaic virus. It causes severe yield reduction in all mungbean growing countries in Asia including India [7]. MYMV belongs to the family Geminiviridae [8]. The family Geminiviridae is divided into four genera (Mastrevirus, Curtovirus, Topocuvirus and Begomovirus) based on genome structure, type of insect vector and host range [9]. Begomovirus is the largest genus of the family Geminiviridae [10], which is characterized by a bipartite genome (DNA-A and DNA-B) or monopartite genomes that were transmitted in a circulative persistent manner by white fly Bemisia [11]. Conventional breeding methods are unsuccessful in developing Yellow Mosaic Virus (YMV) resistant mungbean lines due to rapid explosion of new isolates and also the complexity of mechanism in controlling the resistance to MYMV [12]. The major problem encountered by scientists to develop the MYMV resistant variety is the identification of MYMV resistant lines in segregating population. Identifying the resistant lines is very complicated task due to the lack of reliable screening protocol for assessing the resistance/susceptibility against MYMV. Hence the scientists are in need of any biological/molecular tool that can lead to screening of the resistant or susceptible lines for MYMV. Developing host resistance to the disease or the vector has therefore been considered as the only solution to control this disease [6]. Plant genetic transformation is of particularly benefit to molecular genetic studies and crop improvement programmes [13]. The entry VMGG012-005 is a extra early duration genotype, tolerant to high temperature with drought. If improve this culture for high level of MYMV resistant which can be used directly as variety and also used as donor for short duration, drought tolerant and high temperature resistant along with MYMV donar. 

The emerging field or genetic engineering endows with a new technique agroinoculation was successful for screening virus resistant plants [14,15]. Jacob SS et al., [16] demonstrated the feasibility of using an in vitro molecular protocol to screen for resistance/susceptibility against. MYMV and proved that agroinoculation can be successfully adopted for screening MYMV resistant mungbean genotypes. Exploitation of this reproducible and less expensive technique may lead to the development of a MYMV resistance genotype. With this background knowledge this present investigation was carried out with the aim of identifying the MYMV resistant progenies through agroinoculation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Plant materials 

The experimental material for the present investigation consisted of 225 F2 individuals, 48 F3 progenies and parents VMGG012-005 (short duration, high temperature drought tolerant genotype and moderately susceptible  to MYMV), high yield under high temperature with drought condition. The entry VMGG 012-005 is derived from Vigna radiata (VRM (Gg)1) x Vigna radiata (Pusa bold), developed for the purpose of Moderately resistance / tolerance to Mungbean yellow mosaic virus. It was developed through intraspecific hybridization followed by pedigree selection  and  VGG ru1 ( high level MYMV resistant derivative of Vigna radiata x Vigna umbellata), which were raised at  Agricultural Research Station , Virinjipuram, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Vellore, and VMGG012-005 developed at Virinjipuram  is an agronomically superior high yielding  with short duration variety but Moderately susceptible to MYMV, tolerant to drought and also high temperature tolerant with shortest duration.  VGGru 1 is a field resistant genotype to MYMV. The field experiment was conducted in five consecutive seasons, namely Kharif 2013, Rabi 2013-14, Kharif 2014 Rabi 2014-15 and summer 2015 at Agricultural Research Station, Virinjipuram. 

Phenotyping of mapping population 

In the field condition, the MYMV infection can be evaluated by infector row method as described [12]. The variety Co5 greengram is used as susceptible check at augmented design. The test materials were scored after 80% of plants showed MYMV incidence. The 225 individuals and progenies in the F2 and 48 F3 generation plants were scored for MYMV infection using 1-9 rating scale [17] is adopted. 

Agroinoculation 

The study on agroinoculation was conducted in the Centre for Plant Molecular Biology, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India. The tandem viral constructs of MYMV, VA 221 (KA30 DNA A + KA22 DNA B) and VA 239 (KA30 DNA A + KA27 DNA B) mobilized in  Agrobacterium tumefaciens strains Ach 5 and C 58 were collected from Madurai Kamaraj  university, Madurai and used for further studies. Agroinoculation was done on surface sterilized overnight sprouted seeds of the parents (VMGG012-005 and VGGru 1) and F2 individuals. Agrobacterium tumefaciens strains harbouring the appropriate partial tandem repeat clone were grown to 1 Optical Density at 600 nm in 2 mL AB minimal medium pH 7.0 containing the antibiotics like streptomycin (150 mg L-1), spectinomycin (50 mg L-1) and tetracycline (5 mg L-1) at 28°C at 220 rpm. From this, 1 mL of the culture was taken to inoculate, another 50 mL of AB minimal medium (pH - 7.0) containing the above mentioned antibiotics and grown to 1 OD L 600 nm at 28°C at 220 rpm. The culture was spinned at 4000 rpm for 10 min at 25°C. Cells obtained were re-suspended in 50 mL of AB minimal medium (pH - 5.6) with 100 in acetosyringone (100 µrn). Seed coat of the sprouted seeds was removed by using forceps and pricked around the hypocotyl region and were immediately immersed in the appropriate culture of A. tumefaciens. After the overnight incubation, seeds were washed with distilled water and sown in pots containing autoclaved sand and vermiculite in the ratio of 1:1. Agroinoculated plants were maintained in a growth chamber at 25°C, 60-70% relative humidity and a photoperiod of 16/18h. The Hoagland's solution was applied twice in a week for proper growth of the plants and transferred to green house after 15 days for symptom observation [6] and used the same protocol for agroinoculation test [6]. For this study also followed the same inoculation procedure.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Most of the ruling mungbean varieties are susceptible to MYMV accepted by the farmers. It is necessitates for developing MYMV resistant varieties because mungbean is important pulse food crop in Asia. Most of previous screening studies for MYMV resistance in Asia were conducted in field condition under high MYMV epidemic pressure. Evolution and identification of MYMV resistant lines through conventional breeding method relies on field screening. Even though it is time consuming one and requires evaluation at hot spot area [12]. Sometimes the screening based on natural occurrence in the hot spot areas also does not give consistent results due to the stain presence and environmental condition. For identifying the real resistant source and combination with plant breeding approaches will likely to be needed for the improvement of crops [18,19]. Interspecific hybridization in Vigna radiata x Vigna trilobata for MYMV donar development study revealed same result for many characters reported by [20]. Diversity analysis also made among the Wild Vigna species for many characters same results were reported [21]. 

Pathogen Derived Resistance (PDR) is a very effective genetic engineering approach to control plant viruses [22]. Advancements in the field of genetic engineering provide a new technique called agroinoculation. It is an effective method by which infectious viral clones can be introduced into plants using A. tumefacians [14,23]. reported agroinoculation is all efficient method to employ the virus resistant plants. In earlier report successful agro-inoculation of mungbean with MYMV was recorded by [16,24] proved for MYMV studies in mungbean. Genetic transformation in combination with conventional breeding increases the efficiency of the breeding programme especially the incorporation of the disease resistance into the varieties and is the most predominant and a powerful tool to achieve the goal. The parents VMGG012-005 special features (Table 1) and VGGru 1 initially subjected to agroinoculation, revealed that VGGru1 did not develop any mosaic or leaf curling symptoms upon inoculation with VA 221 strain but at the same time they exhibited susceptibility against VA 239 strain. VMGG012-005 is the moderately susceptible mungbean, developed typical yellow mosaic and leaf curling symptoms in the trifoliate leaves upon agroinoculation with both the Agrobacterium strains (VA 221 and VA 239). Similar to the present finding reported [24] and  also observed the leaf curling and mild yellow mosaic symptoms from agroinoculation in Vigna sp. using two different MYMV isolates. The 225 F2 individuals with MYMV infection, evaluated under field condition indicated that 48 individuals were identified as resistant and their seeds were harvested and subjected to agroinoculation which aims to identify the MYMV resistant mungbean progenies in the segregating population. 

Sl.No

Name of the variety

VMGG 012-005

1

Pedigree

Vigna radiata (VRM(Gg)1 ) x Vigna radiata  Pusa bold

2

Origin (Name of the Institute)

Agricultural  Research Station, Virinjipuram, Vamban - 632 104, TNAU, India

3

Plant growth habit

Erect upright

4

Plant habit

Determinate

5

Stem colour

Green

6

Stem pubescence

Light Present

7

Shape of leaf pinnae

Basal leaf trifoliate, upper leaf trifoliolate

8

Colour of the leaf

Green

9

Leaf pubescence

Present

10

Petiole colour

Green

11

Pod colour: intensity of colour of premature pods

Uniform green

12

Pod pubescence

No

13

Pod colour at maturity

Brownish black

14

Seed colour

Green

15

Seed lusture

Non shiny

16

Seed shape

Globouse

17

Days to 50% flowering

25 days

18

Days to maturity (days)

50 days

19

Plant height (cm)

20 cm

20

Seeds per pod

6-9

21

100 seed weight (g)

Medium (2.5-3.5 )

22

Disease reaction

Moderately Resistant against MYMV

Table 1: Morpho agronomic Characters of VMGG012-005. 

The list of the MYMV field resistant genotypes subjected to agroinoculation screening is presented in Table 2. 

S.No.

Mungbean parents and MYMV resistant F2 Individuals

MYMV score

1

VGGru1

1.0-2.0

2

VMGG012-005

1.0-2.0

3

RESPLANT 01

1.0-2.0

4

RESPLANT 02

1.0-2.0

5

RESPLANT 03

1.0-2.0

6

RESPLANT 04

1.0-2.0

7

RESPLANT 05

1.0-2.0

8

RESPLANT 06

1.0-2.0

9

RESPLANT 07

1.0-2.0

10

RESPLANT 08

1.0-2.0

11

RESPLANT 09

1.0-2.0

12

RESPLANT 10

1.0-2.0

13

RESPLANT 11

1.0-2.0

14

RESPLANT 12

1.0-2.0

15

RESPLANT 13

1.0-2.0

16

RESPLANT 14

1.0-2.0

17

RESPLANT 15

1.0-2.0

18

RESPLANT 16

1.0-2.0

19

RESPLANT 17

1.0-2.0

20

RESPLANT 18

1.0-2.0

21

RESPLANT 19

1.0-2.0

22

RESPLANT 20

1.0-2.0

23

RESPLANT 21

1.0-2.0

24

RESPLANT 22

1.0-2.0

25

RESPLANT 23

1.0-2.0

26

RESPLANT 24

1.0-2.0

27

RESPLANT 25

1.0-2.0

28

RESPLANT 26

1.0-2.0

29

RESPLANT 27

1.0-2.0

30

RESPLANT 28

1.0-2.0

31

RESPLANT 29

1.0-2.0

32

RESPLANT 30

1.0-2.0

33

RESPLANT 31

1.0-2.0

34

RESPLANT 32

1.0-2.0

35

RESPLANT 33

1.0-2.0

36

RESPLANT 34

1.0-2.0

37

RESPLANT 35

1.0-2.0

38

RESPLANT 36

1.0-2.0

39

RESPLANT 37

1.0-2.0

40

RESPLANT 38

1.0-2.0

41

RESPLANT 39

1.0-2.0

42

RESPLANT 40

1.0-2.0

43

RESPLANT 41

1.0-2.0

44

RESPLANT 42

1.0-2.0

45

RESPLANT 43

1.0-2.0

46

RESPLANT 44

1.0-2.0

47

RESPLANT 45

1.0-2.0

48

RESPLANT 46

1.0-2.0

49

RESPLANT 47

1.0-2.0

50

RESPLANT 48

1.0-2.0

Table 2:  List of MYMV field resistant F2 individuals. 

The results of the agroinoculation showed that, among the 48 individuals only ten individuals showed to be resistant. The ten individuals namely Resplant3, Resplant6, Resplant7, Resplant9, Resplant13, Resplant19, Resplant25, Resplant37, Resplant40 and Resplant43 did not develop any mosaic or leaf curling symptoms upon inoculation with VA 221 strain. But at the same time they exhibited susceptibility reaction against the strain VA 239. The remaining thirty eight individuals developed typical yellow mosaic symptom for both the strains (VA 221 and VA 239). The ten resistant, individuals were found to have behaved the same way as that of their resistant, parent VGGru1. The same result revealed in mungbean [25-28]. 

The agroinoculated mungbean plants started developing yellow mosaic symptoms from the 17th day to 23th day and there were no symptoms in the control plants. At the 25th day, the yellow mosaic symptoms were clearly seen on the leaves. The average infectivity of MYMV strains through agroinoculation in mungbean ranged from 0 to 100%. Average per cent infection of resistant VGGru in the strain VA 221 is 0.00 and VA 239 strain is 42.33. The moderately susceptible parent VMGG012-005 recorded an average infection of 97.00 and 100.00% in VA 221 and VA 239, respectively. In blackgram , high yield with MYMV disease resistance  were achieved through interspecific cross combination,  this study as similar results reported in mungbean [25,28] and in blackgram [29]. 

No infection was recorded on Resplant3, Resplant6, Resplant7, Resplant9, Resplant13, Resplant19, Resplant25, Resplant37, Resplant40 and Resplant43 in VA-221 strain; however infection was recorded in these ten individuals ranging from 49.0 to 85. % in VA 239 strain. Among the individuals the highest average infection was recorded in Resplant28 and Resplant24 24 (92.5.00%) followed by Resplant 27 (92.00%), Resplant11 (89.58.00%) and  Resplant (87.00) for VA 239  and Resplant 27 (93.66), Resplant 24 and 28 (91.00%) followed by Resplant 20 (87.5 %) and Resplant 29 (29.87.33 %) in VA 221strains. This results same as the cytological irregularities occur when MYMV resistant development process started by crossing of non resistant with resistance genotypes this result agree [30]. V. umbellata is single  resistant parent is having both  MYMV and Bruchids resistant which is used for  development MYMV resistance in mungbean   this result agree [31,32]. The six wild Vigna species were taken for development of MYMV resistance in mungbean  the same result exhibited [33]. In intraspecific crosses were made among Vigna radiata x Vigna radiata for MYMV resistance  agree with results [19,34].Various wild Vigna species cross combinations showed various level of pollen fertility percentage agree [35]. The broadening of genetic base derived from the wild crosses followed by mutation same result agree with [31]. Thirteen wild Vigna species crossed with Vigna radiata for MYMV donar development and all the characters studied now is revealed same result for many characters reported [3]. Thirteen wild Vigna species crossed with Vigna radiata for MYMV donar development and genetic diversity for variation studied completed,  this study  revealed same result for many characters [27]. In blackgram , high yield with MYMV disease resistance  were achieved through interspecific cross combination,  this study results was similar to that [29] in blackgram .The individuals Resplant 9 (22.05 %) and Resplant6 (52.33) recorded the lowest average infection in the strains VA 239 and Resplant4 (60.88 %) and Resplant 26 (63.0 %) in   VA 221, (Table 3). These findings are nearly in close conformity with the reports [14] in agro inoculating mungbean with 71 to 95% of MYMV [19, 21,25,28]. 

SL.No.

Mungbean parents and MYMV resistant F2 Individuals

Agrobacterium tumifaciens strains

No. of days taken for symptom development

Infectivity (%) (Replication 1)

Infectivity (%) (Replication 2)

Average Infectivity (%)

1

VGGru1

VA 221

-

0.00

0.00

0.00

 

 

VA 239

21

40.00

45.00

42.50

2

VMGG012-005

VA 221

21

100.00

96.00

95.00

 

 

VA 239

21

100.00

100.00

100.00

3

RESPLANT 01

VA 221

22

75.00

72.50

68.75

 

 

VA 239

17

60.00

75.00

77.50

4

RESPLANT 02

VA 221

21

88.00

85.00

71.50

 

 

VA 239

20

78.00

75.60

86.80

5

RESPLANT 03

VA 221

-

0.00

00.00

00.00

 

 

VA 239

21

80.00

85.00

90.00

6

RESPLANT 04

VA 221

21

55.00

60.00

67.50

 

 

VA 239

21

52.00

65.00

58.50

7

RESPLANT 05

VA 221

21

77.00

60.00

63.50

 

 

VA 239

18

70.00

78.00

79.00

8

RESPLANT 06

VA 221

-

0.00

0.00

0.00

 

 

VA 239

21

45.00

53.00

59.00

9

RESPLANT 07

VA 221

-

0.00

0.00

0.00

 

 

VA 239

20

68.00

90.00

89.00

10

RESPLANT 08

VA 221

17

85.00

75.00

75.00

 

 

VA 239

21

70.00

68.50

69.25

11

RESPLANT 09

VA 221

-

0.00

0.00

0.00

 

 

VA 239

21

0.49

0.60

65.00

12

RESPLANT 10

VA 221

23

75.00

70.00

72.50

 

 

VA 239

21

75.60

78.00

81.80

13

RESPLANT 11

VA 221

17

74.00

70.00

82.00

 

 

VA 239

19

92.50

100.00

76.25

14

RESPLANT 12

VA 221

18

85.00

85.00

75.00

 

 

VA 239

23

68.00

58.00

69.00

15

RESPLANT 13

VA 221

-

0.00

0.00

0.00

 

 

VA 239

20

75.00

72.50

78.75

16

RESPLANT 14

VA 221

23

70.00

75.00

87.50

 

 

VA 239

17

68.00

85.00

71.50

17

RESPLANT 15

VA 221

23

88.00

75.60

86.80

 

 

VA 239

23

84.00

75.00

79.50

18

RESPLANT 16

VA 221

23

80.00

80.00

80.00

 

 

VA 239

17

95.00

90.00

67.50

19

RESPLANT 17

VA 221

23

0.00

0.00

0.00

 

 

VA 239

23

87.00

60.00

73.50

20

RESPLANT 18

VA 221

23

80.00

78.00

79.00

 

 

VA 239

23

75.00

74.00

74.50

21

RESPLANT 19

VA 221

-

0.00

0.00

0.00

 

 

VA 239

23

70.00

73.50

66.75

22

RESPLANT 20

VA 221

23

85.00

93.50

84.25

 

 

VA 239

23

85.00

84.00

84.50

23

RESPLANT 21

VA 221

23

78.00

69.00

73.50

 

 

VA 239

17

90.00

88.00

84.00

24

RESPLANT 22

VA 221

18

56.00

60.00

63.00

 

 

VA 239

18

75.00

85.00

75.00

25

RESPLANT 23

VA 221

0.0

0.00

0.00

0.00

 

 

VA 239

19

94.00

90.00

92.00

26

RESPLANT 24

VA 221

23

90.00

92.00

91.00

 

 

VA 239

23

95.00

90.00

92.50

27

RESPLANT 25

VA 221

-

0.00

0.00

0.00

 

 

VA 239

23

90.00

78.00

84.00

28

RESPLANT 26

VA 221

23

56.00

60.00

73.00

 

 

VA 239

23

85.00

85.00

75.00

29

RESPLANT 27

VA 221

23

98.00

96.00

87.00

 

 

VA 239

23

94.00

90.00

92.00

30

RESPLANT 28

VA 221

20

90.00

92.00

91.00

 

 

VA 239

19

95.00

90.00

92.50

31

RESPLANT 29

VA 221

21

90.00

88.00

84.00

 

 

VA 239

19

86.00

90.00

73.00

32

RESPLANT 30

VA 221

20

89.00

87.00

83.00

 

 

VA 239

21

86.00

92.00

79.00

33

RESPLANT 31

VA 221

20

62.50

65.00

58.75

 

 

VA 239

20

75.00

72.50

68.75

34

RESPLANT 32

VA 221

23

70.00

75.00

77.50

 

 

VA 239

19

68.00

85.00

71.50

35

RESPLANT 33

VA 221

23

78.00

75.60

86.80

 

 

VA 239

21

84.00

85.00

79.50

36

RESPLANT 34

VA 221

23

90.00

90.00

90.00

 

 

VA 239

17

75.00

90.00

67.50

37

RESPLANT 35

VA 221

22

62.00

65.00

58.50

 

 

VA 239

23

77.00

60.00

73.50

38

RESPLANT 36

VA 221

22

80.00

78.00

79.00

 

 

VA 239

23

75.00

74.00

74.50

39

RESPLANT 37

VA 221

-

0.00

0.00

0.00

 

 

VA 239

23

70.00

63.50

66.75

40

RESPLANT 38

VA 221

23

65.00

83.50

84.25

 

 

VA 239

13

85.00

84.00

84.50

41

RESPLANT 39

VA 221

19

68.00

69.00

73.50

 

 

VA 239

19

70.00

78.00

84.00

42

RESPLANT 40

VA 221

-

0.00

0.00

0.00

 

 

VA 239

20

75.00

85.00

75.00

43

RESPLANT 41

VA 221

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

 

 

VA 239

20

84.00

80.00

82.00

44

RESPLANT 42

VA 221

23

90.00

92.00

91.00

 

 

VA 239

23

95.00

90.00

92.50

45

RESPLANT 43

VA 221

-

0.00

0.00

0.00

 

 

VA 239

23

56.00

49.50

52.75

46

RESPLANT 44

VA 221

23

85.00

85.00

80.00

 

 

VA 239

22

80.00

78.50

79.25

47

RESPLANT 45

VA 221

20

65.00

70.00

67.50

 

 

VA 239

20

80.00

85.00

77.50

48

RESPLANT 46

VA 221

20

88.00

85.00

81.50

 

 

VA 239

19

80.00

94.00

82.00

49

RESPLANT 47

VA 221

23

85.00

90.00

87.50

 

 

VA 239

18

94.00

92.00

93.00

50

RESPLANT 48

VA 221

22

79.00

77.00

73.00


Table 3:
Average infectivity of Mungbean parents and 48 MYMV resistant F2 individuals Agroinoculation for MYMV. 

To verify the non presence of viral DNA inside the host genome phenotypic showed in the field condition at consecutive sown. The same 10 genotypes which was resistant for VA 221 raised in the field condition showed resistance again. These results are in accordance with the reports [14,19,35].The indicating the presence of viral DNA in agroinoculated symptomatic plants and their absence in asymptomatic plants with coat protein specific primers for the DNA A and B components [19,25,36,37]. The identified resistant individuals namely, Resplant3, Resplant6, Resplant7, Resplant9, Resplant13, Resplant19, Resplant25, Resplant37, Resplant40 and Resplant43 were similar to their resistant parent, exhibiting the presence of viral coat protein gene for both the strains. This clearly depicts their pure inheritance pattern of the resistance for MYMV. For further confirmation, the individuals which showed resistance in field (F2 generation) and agro inoculation, were alone forwarded to next generation (F3) and as per this, the ten individuals were forwarded to next generation along with five susceptibles. In F3 generation MYMV infection can be evaluated by MYMV disease rating scale. Interestingly, the ten individuals which showed resistance in field (F2 generation) and agroinoculation, are found to be resistant in F3 generation and F4 generations under field conditions also.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study show that the ten progenies namely Resplant5, Resplant22, Resplant28, Resplant35, Resplant88, Resplant92, Resplant123, Resplant156, Resplant157 and Resplant5168 are confirmed for resistance in both agroinoculation and field screening. From these five progenies, a MYMV resistant mungbean genotype can probably be developed by adopting future breeding programmes.

REFERENCES

  1. Karuppanapandian T, Karuppudurai T, Sinha PB, Kamarul HA, Manoharan K (2006) Genetic diversity in green gram (Vigna radiata ) land races analysed by using random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD). African. Journal of Biotechnology 5: 1214 -1219.
  2. Khattak AB, Nizakat B, Aurangze (2007) Quality assessment and consumers acceptability studies of newly evolved mungbean genotypes (Vigna radiata ). American Journal of Food Technology 2: 536-542.
  3. Prem Kumar N, Pandiyan M, Veerabadhiran P (2007) Interspecific hybridization in Vigna Plant Archives 7: 395-396
  4. Rishi N (2009) Significant plant virus diseases in India and a glimpse of modern disease management technology. Journal of Genetics and Plant Pathology 75: 1-18.
  5. Prajapat R, Marval A, Bajpai V, Gaur R (2011) Genomics and proteomics characterization of alphasatelite in weed associated with begomovirus. International Journal of Plant Pathology 2: 1-14.
  6. Kang BC, Yearn I, Jahn MM (2005) Genetics of plant virus resistance. Annual Review of Phytopathology 43: 581- 621.
  7. Biswass KK, Malathi VG, Varma A (2008) Diagnosis of symptomless Yellow mosaic begomovirus infection in pigeon pea by using cloned Mungbean yellow mosaic India virus a probe. Journal of Plant Biochemistry and Biotechnology 17: 9-14.
  8. Fauquet CM, Bisaro DM, Briddon RW, Brown JK, Harrison BD (2003) Revision of taxonomic criteria for species demarcation in the family Geminiviridae and an updated list begomovirus species. Archives of Virology 148: 405-421.
  9. Medina Ramos GR, De La Torre-Almaraz, Bujanos-Muniz R, Guevara Gonzalez RG, Tierranegra Garcia N, et al. (2008) Co transmission Pepper huasteco yellow vein virus and Pepper golden mosaic virus in chilli pepper by Bemisia tabaci (Genn.). Journal of Entomology 5: 176-184.
  10. Dhakar K, Gupta VK, Rathore MS, Gaur RK (2010) Virus resistance and gene silencing in plants infected with begomovirus. Journal of Applied Science 10: 1787-1791.
  11. Sidhu JS, Mann RS, Butter N (2009) Deleterious effects of cotton leaf curl virus on longevity and fecundity of whitefly, Bemisia tabaci (Gennadius). Journal of Entomology 6: 62- 66.
  12. Selvi R, Muthiah AR, Manivannan N, Raveendran TS, Manickam A, et al. (2006) Tagging of RAPD marker for MYMV resistance in mungbean (Vigna radiata ) Wilczek). Asian Journal of Plant Science 5: 277-280.
  13. Darbani BF, Safar T, Mahmoud Z, Saeed N, Shahin C, et al. (2008) DNA delivery methods to produce transgenic plants. Biotechnology 7: 385-402.
  14. Usharani KS, Surendranath B, Haq QMR, Malathi VG (2005) Infectivity analysis of a soybean isolate of Mungbean yellow mosaic India virus by agroinoculation. Journal of Genetics and Plant Pathology 71: 230-237.
  15. Bi H, Aileni M, Zhang P (2010) Evaluation of cassava varieties for cassava mosaic disease resistance jointly by agroinoculation screening and molecular markers. African Journal of Plant Science. 4: 330-338.
  16. Jacob SS, Vanitharani R, Karthikeyan AS, Chinchore Y, Thilaichidambaram P, et al. (2003) Mungbean yellow mosaic virus-Vi Agroinfection by codelivery of DNA A and DNA B for one Agrobacterium Plant Disease 87: 247-251.
  17. Singh G, Kapoor S, Singh K (1988) Multiple disease resistance in mungbean with special emphasis on Mungbean yellow mosaic virus. Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Mungbean, Shanhua, Nov. 16-20, 1987, Asian Vegetable Research and Development Centre, Tainan, Taiwan, Pg no. 290-296.
  18. Roy B, Noren SK, Mandal AB Basu AK (2011) Genetic engineering for Abiotic stress tolerance in agricultural crops. Biotechnology 10: 1-22.
  19. Karthikeyan A, Sudha M, Senthil N, Pandiyan M, Raveendran M, et al. (2012) Screening and identification of random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) markers linked to Mungbean yellow mosaic virus (MYMV) resistance in mungbean (Vigna radiata (L.)Wilczek). Archives of phytopathology and plant protection 45: 712-716.
  20. Pandiyan M, Senthil N, Suersh R, Chakravarthy N, Packiaraj D, et al. (2012) Interspecific hybridization of Vigna radiata x Vigna trilobata. Wudpecker Journal of Agricultural Research 1: 233-234.
  21. Pandiyan M, Senthil N, Anitha M, Raveendran M, Sudha M, et al. (2012) Diversity analysis of Vigna through morphological markers. Wudpecker Journal of Agricultural Research 1: 335-340.
  22. Chellappan P, Masona MV, Vanitharani R, Taylor NJ, Fauquet CM (2004) Broad spectrum resistance to ssDNA viruses associated with transgene-induced gene silencing in cassava. Plant Mol Bio 56: 601-611.
  23. Grimsley N, Hohn B, Hohn T, Walden R (1986) Agroinfection, an alternative route for viral infection of plants by using the Ti plasmid. Proceedings on National Academy of Science USA 83: 3282-3286.
  24. Balaji V, Vanitharani R, Karthikeyan AS, Anbalagan S, Veluthambi K (2004) Infectivity analysis of two variable DNA B components of Mungbean yellow mosaic virus (Vigna mungo) and Vigna radiata. Journal of Bioscience 29: 297-308.
  25. Karthikeyan A, Shobhana VG, Sudha M, Raveendran M, Senthil N, et al. (2014) Mungbean yellow mosaic virus (MYMV): a threat to green gram (Vigna radiata) production in AsiaInternational journal of pest management 60: 314-324.
  26. Pandiyan M, Ramamoorthi N, Ganesh SK, Jebaraj S, Nagarajan P, et al. (2008) Broadening the genetic base and introgression of MYMV resistance and yield improvement through unexplored genes from wild relatives in mungbean. Plant Mutation Reports2: 33-43.
  27. Pandiyan M, Senthil N, Sivakumar P, Muthiah AR, Ramamoorthi N (2010) Genetic diversity analysis among greengram genotypes using RAPD markers. Electronic Journal of Plant Breeding1:466-473.
  28. Sudha M, Karthikeyan A, Anusuya P, Ganesh NM, Pandiyan M, et al. (2013) Inheritance of resistance to Mungbean yellow mosaic virus (MYMV) in inter and intra specific crosses of mungbean (Vigna radiata). American Journal of Plant Sciences 4: 1924-1927.
  29. Pandiyan M, Geetha S, Gnanamalar RP, Packiaraj D, Mahalingam A, et al. (2018) A new high yielding MYMV disease resistant blackgram variety VBN 8. Electronic Journal of Plant Breeding 9: 1272-1279.
  30. Pandiyan M, Subbulakshmi B, Kumar M, Jebaraj S (2005) Cytological Studies in Vigna International Journal of Mendel 22: 41-42.
  31. Pandiyan M, Subbulakshmi B, Ganeshram S, Kumar M, Ramanathan SP, Jebaraj S (2006) Bruchid resistance in Vigna International Journal of Mendel 23:101-102.
  32. Mariyammal I, Seram D, Samyuktha SM, Karthikeyan A, Dhasarathan M, et al. (2019) QTL mapping in Vigna radiata × Vigna umbellata population uncovers major genomic regions associated with bruchid resistance. Molecular Breeding 39: 110.
  33. Pandiyan M, Subbulakshmi B, Alice D, Ramanathan SP, Jebaraj S (2006) Mungbean yellow mosaic virus Resistance in Vigna International Journal of Mendel 23: 99-100.
  34. Pandiyan M, Subbalakhshmi B, Jebaraj S (2006) Combining ability studies in greengram (Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek). International Journal of Plant Sciences 1: 1-5.
  35. Pandiyan M, Subbulakshmi B, Kumar M, Ganeshram S, Jebaraj S (2006) Pollen fertility studies in Vigna International Journal of Mendel 23: 97-99
  36. Sudha M, Anusuya P, Mahadev NG, Karthikeyan A, Nagarajan P, et al. (2013) Molecular studies on mungbean (Vigna radiata (L.)Wilczek) and ricebean (Vigna umbellata (Thunb.)) interspecific hybridisation for Mungbean yellow mosaic virus resistance and development of species-specific SCAR marker for ricebean. Archives of phytopathology and plant protection 46: 503-517.
  37. Sudha M, Karthikeyan A, Shobhana VG, Nagarajan P, Raveendran M, et al. (2015) Search for Vigna species conferring resistance to Mungbean yellow mosaic virus in mungbean. Plant Genetic Resources 13: 162-167.

Citation: Pandiyan M, Karthikeyan A, Senthil N, Sudha M, Sivakumar C, et al. (2020) Development of Mungbean yellow mosaic virus Resistant Genotypes in Mungbean through Interspecific Crosses of Wild Vigna Species. J Plant Sci Curr Res 4: 011

Copyright: © 2020  Pandiyan M, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

© 2021, Copyrights Herald Scholarly Open Access. All Rights Reserved!