Marker‐assisted selection of common beans for resistance to common bacterial blight: efficacy and economics

By Kangfu Yu, S. Park, V. Poysa. 2000

160 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/8bc4a535eb5afbd8288dd3b1e51f50d13418f658

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Plant Science

Citations in the corpus

Genetic mapping and QTL analysis of fruit and flower related traits in cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) using recombinant inbred lines (2008, background): “Using the molecular markers tightly linked to targeted agronomic traits is an efficient breeding approach for crops improvement, especially for the improvement of some complex traits (having complex environmental relationships) (Yu et al. 2000; Fan et al. 2006; Zhu and Sun 2006; Lecomte et al. 2004)”
Achievements and limitations of contemporary common bean breeding using conventional and molecular approaches (2009, methodology): “Yu et al. (2000) reported that screening bean lines for common blight resistance using the SCAR marker BC420 was about 1/3 less than the cost of screening beans for common blight reaction using conventional techniques.”
Money matters (I): costs of field and laboratory procedures associated with conventional and marker-assisted maize breeding at CIMMYT (2003, background): “Currently, little information is publicly available concerning the costs of phenotypic and genotypic selection procedures, and few papers have addressed this issue (Moreau et al. 2000; Ragot and Hoisington 1993; Yu et al. 2000).”
The successful application of a marker-assisted wheat breeding strategy (2007, background): “However, reports detailing the successful implementation of molecular markers in pragmatic breeding programmes have been limited (For some examples see Yu et al. 2000; Yousef and Juvik 2001; Jefferies et al. 2003; Zhou et al. 2003; Eglinton et al. 2006; Fan et al. 2006) and are often restricted to”
Progress and prospects of marker assisted backcrossing as a tool in crop breeding programs (2006, background): “MAB is about one-third less than that of the greenhouse tests (Yu et al., 2000).”
Achievements and Challenges in Legume Breeding for Pest and Disease Resistance (2015, background): “…bacterial blight, rust, virus, anthracnose, angular leaf spot, white mould and root rot in common bean (AlzateMarin et al., 1999b; Stavely, 2000; Yu et al., 2000; de Oliveira et al., 2005; Ender et al., 2008; Navarro et al., 2009) and powdery mildew in pea (for the development of pea cultivar…”
A major QTL for common bacterial blight resistance derives from the common bean great northern landrace cultivar Montana No.5 (2003, background): “Conversely, other markers linked with CBB resistance (Bai et al., 1997; Jung et al., 1997; Pedraza et al., 1997; Yu et al., 2000a ) have permitted researchers to trace back the tepary-derived genes conferring resistance to CBB to tepary bean as the donor parent (Miklas et al., 1999).”
Backcross breeding for improved resistance to common bacterial blight in pinto bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) (2005, methodology): “The DNA was assayed for the presence of the BC420 and SU91 SCARs linked with the B6 and B8 QTL derived from XAN 159 and the SAP6 SCAR linked with the B10 QTL present in Chase using a single multiplex PCR reaction described by Miklas et al. (2000).”
Common bean breeding for resistance against biotic and abiotic stresses: From classical to MAS breeding (2006, background): “…SU91, and SAP6 linked with three major QTL on B6, B8, and B10 (see review by Kelly et al., 2003), respectively, are being used for MAS of CBB resistance (Mutlu et al., 2005a; Yu et al., 2000) and to validate QTL present in resistant lines selected by phenotypic selection (Fourie & Herselman, 2002).”