The expert consultations on the use of crop wild relatives for pre-breeding in potato was a workshops organized by the Global Crop Diversity Trust in collaboration with CIP and took place from the 22nd – 24th of February 2012.
Ähnlich wie Shelley Jansky's presentation in the framework of the expert consultation on the use of crop wild relatives for pre-breeding in potato (20)
7. By 1800, potato was a major crop in England and
Ireland
“Degeneration” was a problem
Selection of cultivars from open-pollinated
seedling populations was productive
First deliberate hybridization
◦ Knight, England, 1807
8. Daber
◦ Brought to Germany in 1830
◦ Immune to wart; high starch
◦ Probably from Chile
Rough Purple Chile
◦ Brought to US in 1851 (from Chile via Panama)
Progeny
include Garnet Chili, Early Rose, and Burbank
were used as parents in Europe after Irish potato famine
are in >250 N. Am and European cultivars
Most cultivars are in Chilean cytoplasm
9. Germplasm collection
◦ Russia, Germany, UK, US
W-races
◦ Breeding lines developed in Germany, Belgium, U.S.
◦ Late blight resistance from S. demissum
Backcross progenies resembled cultivars
Yield increases were observed as a “side-
effect” of introgressing disease resistance
An important feature of successful parents
was male fertility
10. Base broadening
◦ Mass selection for adaptation
Neotuberosum from adg (Simmonds, Glendinning,
Plaisted)
Long day phu-stn (Carroll, Haynes)
◦ B populations (CIP)
Late blight resistance and other traits
Sexual polyploidization
◦ 4x from 4x x 2x and 2x x 2x crosses
Yield heterosis
Processing quality
◦ Lenape contains S. chacoense germplasm
11. S. demissum (6x, 4EBN)
◦ 1900‟s – found to be resistant
◦ Initially used as a source of major genes
In pedigrees of cultivars developed in mid-
1900‟s – in many countries
Resistance broke down in 1960‟s
◦ But minor genes also exist
Also contributed hybrid vigor
12. Cultivated
◦ „Villaroela‟
Native cultivar, Chiloe
Introduced to U.S. for virus resistance
In pedigrees of British and N. American cultivars
◦ Adg CPC 1673 and 1960 (H1gene)
Wild
◦ S. vernei (2x, 2EBN)
Somatically doubled and crossed to cultivars
Quantitative resistance
13. S. stoloniferum (4x, 2EBN)
◦ MPI61.303/34
Sto-tbr hybrid – Max Planck
Durable resistance –Rysto
In pedigrees of many European cultivars
◦ sto-tbr hybrids
Male sterile
Field resistance to late blight
14. 1960‟s, U.S.
S. chacoense (2x, 2EBN)
◦ Grandparent of Lenape
◦ In pedigrees of most N. Am. processing CVs
S. berthaultii (2x, 2EBN)
◦ In pedigrees of White Pearl and Kalkaska
High dry matter content
Low reducing sugar accumulation in storage
15. Traits from CWRs can be easily transferred to
cultivars
◦ “When trying to transfer genes from the mentioned
wild species, we never were faced with
unsurmountable difficulties.” (Ross, 1966)
◦ “It was possible to transfer any property so far
tested of a wild species into a cultivar.” (Ross, 1978)
◦ “…virtually any potato species can be utilized for
the introgression of desirable genes into S.
tuberosum.” (Bradshaw et al., 2006)
16. CWRs contribute to yield heterosis
◦ “…it looks as though potato breeding has generally
been rather unsuccessful. … The reason most
probably lies in the narrowness of the genetic base
of our north temperate breeding stocks.”
(Simmonds, 1971)
◦ “Three-fourths of the varieties developed from
species hybrids are reported to possess high or
very high yielding quality.” (Rieman et al., 1954)
◦ “Beyond the planned transfer of distinctive major
genes, there is a heterotic effect on yield…”
(Ross, 1979)
17. No unfavorable traits prohibit the use of
CWRs for cultivar development
◦ “There is no unfavorable trait known that would
prohibit the utilization of a wild species.” (Ross,
1979)
◦ “The suppression of the glycoalkaloid synthesis is
inherited in a dominant way.” (Ross, 1966)
18. CWRs may contribute multiple desirable
traits
◦ “It is noteworthy that when primitive cultivars or
wild species have been used in modern
breeding, in spite of the procedure used being
designed to eliminate most of their contributions
apart from the specific characters for which they
were chosen for use, they have frequently
contributed useful characters in addition to those
intended.” (Glendinning, 1983)
19. Few generations of backcrossing are needed
to return to cultivar types
◦ “…after the first backcross already a remarkable
shift to the behavior of S. tuberosum varieties has
taken place.” (Rudorf, 1958)
◦ “…seedling lines appeared among the backcross
progenies coming very close to cultivated varieties
in yield and other properties.” (Ross, 1979)
20. Despite attempts by many programs over
several decades to introgress wild species
germplasm into cultivars, the genetic base of
potato is still primarily S. tuberosum.
Scotland (Bradshaw, 2009)
◦ Access to 80 species
7 species in cultivar pedigrees
S. demissum (late blight)
S. vernei (cyst nematode)
S. microdontum (PVY)
S. multidissectum, S. commersonii, S. maglia, S. acaule
Hinweis der Redaktion
Domesticated about 7000 years agoMuch gene exchange between cult and wild potatoSpooner – single domestication event in southern Peru/northern Bolivia
Potatoes have been used as a food in Peru for at least 10,000 yearsFor thousands of years, cultivated potato exchanged genes with wild potato
Potato introduced to Europe in late 1500’s – Canary Islands in 1567, then mainland Europe in 1570sSpread as a botanical oddity and feed crop1573 – first record of use for human consumption - Spain
For 350 years, potatoes were bred without an infusion of wild relatives
Breeding began in China and India in the 1930s
Attempts were made to cross tbr with acl and mag brought to Europe by travelers – unsuccessful because the acl and mag clones were 3x (Hawkes 1958)
Goodrich – Utica NY, from market in Panama, native CV from ChileIn the summer of 1842 farmers around Philadelphia experienced a disastrous and inexplicable loss of their potato crop. The potatoes sprouted and grew normally but in mid-season their leaves developed ‘dead spots’ that quickly engulfed the plant. The following summer the mysterious potato affliction (LB) appeared again and it spread across New England in 1844. One concept supported by Goodrich in 1847 was called “degeneracy.” This theory held that potatoes were loosing “vitality” during their ~100 years of cultivation in North America. They proposed to solve the problem by re-introducing “vigorous, native potatoes” from South America to cross with the enfeebled American crop. In 1850 Goodrich obtained several potato cultivars from Chile via a contact in the American embassy in Panama. One of the cultivars was labeled “Rough Purple Chili.” Its not known what strains Goodrich crossed with Rough Purple Chili but by 1853 he had a potato like no other. “Garnet Chili” (photo) was a vigorous potato producing large yields of large round white-fleshed tubers of “excellent quality.” Most breeders were hobbyists, so no good records
Russia – Vavilov, Bukasov – started collecting in 1926 – laid the foundation for modern potato breedingDms and dms-tbr hybrids sent from US to Germany for LB res – lines sent back to US gave rise to Kennebec
Mass selection of adg can produce progeny that are good parents in temperate breeding programsBut neotbr and phu-stn have not found their way into CVs – yield advantage but poor tuber type and short dormancy (Bradshaw et al 2006)B pops – no major genes for LB res, other traits virus res, culinary and processing quality – adg, neo tbr, dms, acl, blb, phu
LB res alone probably doesn’t explain the widespread prolonged popularity of dms – probably also due to hybrid vigor for yield
High starch quantity was a beneficial side effect of using vrnSpg also contributed scab res
Sto incorporated into European CVs for PVY resistance
Unfavorable traits – GA’s – according to Ross (1966) suppression of GA synthesis is dominant, so can easily reduce GA levels in BCsRudorf 1958 – few BCs needed
Unfavorable traits – GA’s – according to Ross (1966) suppression of GA synthesis is dominant, so can easily reduce GA levels in BCsRudorf 1958 – few BCs needed
Unfavorable traits – GA’s – according to Ross (1966) suppression of GA synthesis is dominant, so can easily reduce GA levels in BCsRudorf 1958 – few BCs needed
Unfavorable traits – GA’s – according to Ross (1966) suppression of GA synthesis is dominant, so can easily reduce GA levels in BCsRudorf 1958 – few BCs needed