American Journal of Plant Sciences, 2011, 2, 688-691
doi:10.4236/ajps.2011.25083 Published Online November 2011 (http://www.SciRP.org/journal/ajps)
Allelic Relationship between Lr9 and the Leaf Rust
Resistance Gene in Kharchia Local Mutant of
Wheat
Navjot Kaur Dhillon1*, Harcharan Singh Dhaliwal2
1Department of Plant Breeding and Genetics, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, India; 2 Akal School of Biotechnology, Baru
Sahib, Himachal Pradesh, India.
Received August 9th, 2011; revised September 30th, 2011; accepted October 30th, 2011.
ABSTRACT
To confirm allelic relationship between Lr9 and the leaf rust resistance gene in KLM4-3B, genetics of resistance was
studied using crosses (WL711 + Lr9) × WL711 and (WL711 + LrKLM4-3B) × WL711. The F2 populations in cross
(WL711 + Lr9) × WL711 and (WL711 + LrKLM4-3B) × WL711 segregated in ratio of 3:1 for disease reaction at seed-
ling stage against pathotype 77-5 of leaf rust. This suggests that rust resistance in these stocks are under the control of
single dominant genes. Further, to study allelic relationship between Lr9 and LrKLM4-3B, F2 population of the cross
(WL711 + LrKLM4-3B) × (WL711 + Lr9) was studied. A segregation ratio of 15:1 implies that the two genes Lr9 and
LrKLM4-3B are non-allelic genes.
Keywords: Lr9, Isogenic Lines, Non-Allelic Genes
1. Introduction
It is imperative to stabilize the wheat production by redu-
cing the losses due to various diseases including leaf rust,
stem rust, yellow rust, Karnal bunt etc. Among the dis-
eases, leaf rust caused by Puccinia recondita Roberage
ex. Desmaz f.sp. tritici is one of the most important and
devastating foliar diseases of wheat which cause signifi-
cant yield losses all over the world [1-8]. In all regions in
which wheat is grown, rusts have caused periodic severe
epidemics [9]. The rust accelerates foliage senescence re-
ducing cumulative light interception of the crop which
leads to reduced dry matter production [10]. Breeding for
resistance against leaf rust is an economical, efficient and
environmentally safe control measure to reduce these
losses [11]. Development of disease resistant varieties is
one of the most economical methods of control of dis-
eases like leaf rust. However, growing of rust resistant
varieties having single gene for resistance results in rapid
evolution of virulent biotypes of the pathogen, thereby
making the resistance gene ineffective and the variety
susceptible to rust. One of the ways to develop varieties
with durable rust resistance is to pyramid the genes for
resistance in a single variety [12]. It is difficult to pyra-
mid two or more disease resistance genes through con-
ventional means, particularly where the resistance genes
in question are effective against all the prevalent patho-
types. However, recent advances in molecular biology
have made it possible to pyramid several genes in single
line using marker assisted selection (MAS). Tagging of
genes with molecular markers is pre-requisite for MAS
[13].
A number of rust resistance genes, including those for
leaf rust resistance, have been transferred from wild rela-
tives of wheat into cultivated wheats [14,15]. In India,
from the analyses of 2630 samples collected from 17
states, one union territory and Nepal from 2005 to 2008,
31 races were identified among which eight were new
[16]. Most of these could not, however be exploited com-
mercially because of extensive linkage drag. One of the
leaf rust resistance genes, Lr9 transferred from Aegilops
umbellulata [17] and located on chromosome 6BL, has
no undesirable effect associated with it [18]. This gene is
effective against all the races of leaf rust currently pre-
valent in Northern India. Similarly, another leaf rust resi-
stance gene identified in (Kharchia local mutant KLM4-
3B) is also effective against all the prevalent leaf rust
pathotypes in Northern India. In the absence of virulence,
capable of differentiating Lr9 and KLM4-3B in the In-

Allelic Relationship between Lr9 and the Leaf Rust Resistance Gene in Kharchia Local Mutant of Wheat689
dian subcontinent KLM4-3B has been suspected to be
Lr9 rather than an induced mutant of Kharchia local [19].
High density molecular maps have been constructed in
several crops including rice, maize, tomato and Triticum
[20,21] and a number of genes of economic importance
have been tagged with series of molecular markers [22,
23]. Molecular markers closely linked to the genes for
rust resistance can be used not only for establishing alle-
lic relationships among resistant sources but also for their
pyramiding using marker assisted selection (MAS).
2. Material and Method
2.1. Disease Reaction Studies
Single spore culture of P recondita f.sp. tritici variants
77-5 (maintained on Agra local) were used for identifica-
tion of F2 seedling resistance genes.
2.2. Raising of Seedlings
Seeds of the parents (WL 711, KLM4-3B and Thatcher +
Lr9) were sown along with F2 populations of the three
crosses in bread boxes containing a mixture of farmyard
manure and sandy loam soil in equal proportions. Agra
local was also sown as susceptible check. The seedlings
were raised in glass house maintained at a temperature of
25˚C ± 1˚C. Relative humidity above 80 per cent was
maintained by using desert cooler. The bread boxes were
watered every day to maintain vigour of the seedlings.
First leaf of the seven day old seedling was inoculated
with homogeneous mixture of appropriate rust culture
and talc, keeping inoculum density of 6 - 10 urediospores
per microscopic field at a magnification of 100x under
light microscope. After inoculation the seedlings were
incubated at 100 percent relative humidity for 16 hours.
These seedlings were then transferred to growth cham-
bers.
2.3. Scoring the Infection Types
Fourteen days after inoculation, the infection type on the
seedlings was scored using a modification of the scale
given by Stakman [24]. The seedlings showing .infection
type 0, 1, 2 and X were classified as resistant, whereas
those with infection types 3 to 4 were classified as sus-
ceptible.
Further, disease reaction of F2 population of three dif-
ferent crosses at adult stage were scored by using Modi-
fied Cobb Scale by Peterson [25].
2.4. Statistical Analysis
Simple Chi-square (χ2) test was applied to fit appropriate
genetic ratios in F2 generation obtained from the three
crosses (WL 711 + Lr9) × WL 711, (WL 711 + LrKLM4-
3B) × WL 711 and (WL 711 + Lr9) × (WL 711 +
LrKLM4-3B). Chi-square value was calculated using the
following formula:


2
2
1d.f .
OE
E
n




where,
n = Number of phenotypic classes.
d.f. = Degree of freedom.
O = Number of observed plants in a phenotypic class.
E = Number of expected plants in a phenotypic class.
3. Results and Discussion
In the present investigation, to confirm the allelic rela-
tionship between the leaf rust genes Lr9 and the resistant
gene in KLM4-3B, F2 generations of three crosses (WL
711 + Lr9) × WL 711, (WL 711 + LrKLM4-3B) × WL
711 and (WL 711 + Lr9) × (WL 711 + LrKLM4-3B)
were studied. The results pertaining to these studies are
presented here.
Results of the cross of isogenic line of the leaf rust re-
sistant gene of KLM4-3B (LrKLM4-3B) with the recur-
rent parent, WL711 are presented in Tables 1 and 2. Out
of 122 F2 plants, 86 were resistant and 36 susceptible to
leaf rust pathotype 77-5. The infection type observed on
resistant plants were 0, 0, 1, 1+, 2, 2+. The segregation of
F2 plants showed a good fit to 3:1 ratio (χ2 = 1.32). This
indicated that the Lr KLM4-3B is dominant.
In the second cross of isogenic lines of Lr9 with the
recurrent parent, out of 126 F2 plants 89 plants were re-
sistant and 37 were susceptible to the leaf rust pathotype
77-5 [Table 1]. The ratio of resistant to susceptible
plants did not differ significantly from 3:1 (χ2 = 1.28).
This indicated that Lr9 also behaves as dominant gene to
pathotypes 77-5.
In the cross between isogenic lines carrying Lr9 and
LrKLM4-3B, out of 101 F2 plants, 91 showed resistant
reaction and 10 were susceptible to pathotype 77-5. This
did not differ significantly from 15 resistant: 1 suscepti-
ble ratio (Table 1). This suggested that the two leaf rust
resistant genes, Lr9 and LrKLM4-3B, are non-allelic.
The earlier studies have also shown that these two leaf
rust genes are non-allelic [19]. Lr9 is an alien gene on
chromosome 6BL translocation from Aegilops umbellata
[17], whereas LrKLM4-3B was identified to be resistant
to leaf rust [26]. Preliminary work carried out at the
School of Biotechnology, Punjab Agricultural University
has shown that the LrKLM4-3B is not a mutant gene as
claimed earlier [26] but is associated with translocation
involving chromosome 2BL (Dhaliwal and Harjit Singh,
Pers.Commu.). These observations further support that
these two genes are non-allelic.
4. Conclusions
Genetics of resistance studied of F2 population using

Allelic Relationship between Lr9 and the Leaf Rust Resistance Gene in Kharchia Local Mutant of Wheat 690
Table 1. F2 segregation for reaction to leaf rust pathotype 77-5 in three different crosses.
Observed number of plants
Sr.
No. Crosses Total no. of plantsResistant (O-2+)3
+ 4– 4Total Expected ratio X2 (Cal.) Probability (P)
1. (WL711 + Lr KLM4-3B) × WL711) 122 86 14418363:1 1.32NS 0.10 - 0.25
2. (WL711 + Lr9 × WL711) 126 89 16219373:1 1.28NS 0.10 - 0.25
3. (WL711 – Lr KLM4-3B) × (WL711 + Lr9) 101 91 5231015:1 2.29NS 0.05 - 0.10
Table 2. Adult stage disease reaction of F2 population.
Seedling reaction (WL 711 + LrKLM4-3B) × WL711 (WL711 + Lr9) × WL711 (WL711 – Lr KLM4-3B) × (WL711+ Lr9)
Adult reaction Number of plants Adult reactionNumber of plantsAdult reaction Number of plants
0, 0;, ;, 0 75 0 79 0 86
1, 1+, 2, 2+ TS 5 TS 4 TS 1
(R) 5S 9 5S 6 5S 4
10S 4 10S 4 10S 5
3+, 4 40S 4 40S 7 40S 3
(S) 60S 26 60S 23 60S 2
80S 2 80S 3 80S -
crosses (WL711 +Lr9) × WL711 and (WL711 + LrKLM4-
3B) × WL711 segregated in ratio of 3:1 for reaction to
pathotype 77-5 of leaf rust. This suggested that rust re-
sistance in these stocks is under the control, of single do-
minant genes. Further, to study allelic relationship be-
tween Lr9 and LrKLM4-3B, F2 population of the cross
(WL711 +LrKLM4-3B) × (WL711 +Lr9) was studied. A
segregation ratio of 15:1 demonstrate that the two genes
Lr9 and LrKLM4-3B are two different non-allelic genes.
REFERENCES
[1] M. G. Eversmeyer and L. E. Browder, “Effect of Leaf
and Stem Rust on 1973 Kansaswheat Yields,” Plant Dis-
ease Reporter, Vol. 58, No. 5, 1974, pp. 469-471.
[2] R. G. Saini and A. K. Gupta, “Genes for Resistance to
Brown Rust Puccinia recondita) in Wheat. II. Lr Genes
in Frontana, WG138 and E6360,” Cereal Research
Communications, Vol. 7, 1979, pp. 289-291.
[3] D. Anand, R. G. Saini and A. K. Gupta, “Slow Leaf Rust
Development Due to Combination of Some Genes in
Wheat,” Plant Disease Reporter, Vol. 3, 1988, p. 97.
[4] M. Seck, A. P. Roelfs and P. S. Teng , “Effect of Leaf
Rust Puccinia recondite Triticii on Yield of Four Isog-
enic Wheat Lines,” Crop Protection, Vol. 7, No. 1, 1988,
pp. 39-43. doi:10.1016/0261-2194(88)90036-1
[5] K. V. S. Rao, J. P. Snow and G. T. Berggren, “Effect or
Growth Stage and Initial Inoculum Level on Leaf Rust
Development and Yield Loss Caused by Puccinia recon-
dita f. sp. tritici,” Journal of Phytopathology, Vol. 127,
No. 3, 1989, pp. 200-210.
doi:10.1111/j.1439-0434.1989.tb01130.x
[6] R. P. Singh, J. Huerta-Espino, W. Pfeiffer and P. F. Lo-
pez, “Occurrence and Impact of a New Leaf Rust Race on
Durum Wheat in Northwestern Mexico from 2001 to
2003,” Plant Disease, Vol. 88, No. 7, 2004, pp. 703-708.
doi:10.1094/PDIS.2004.88.7.703
[7] J. A. Appel, E. DeWolf, W. W. Bockus and T. Todd,
“Kansas Cooperative Plant Disease Survey Report Pre-
liminary Kansas Wheat Disease Loss Estimates,” August
11, 2009. http:// www.ksda.gov/includes/document cen-
ter/plant_protection/Plant%20Disease20Reports/2009KS
WheatDiseaseLossEstimates.pdf. Accessed 29 November
2010.
[8] G. V. Volkova, T. P. Alekseeva, L. K. Anpilogova, M. V.
Dobryanskaya, O. F. Vaganova and D. A. Kol’bin, “Phy-
topathological Characteristics of Leaf Rust Resistance of
New Winter Wheat Varieties,” Russian Agricultural Sci-
ences, Vol. 35, No. 3, 2009, pp. 168-171.
doi:10.3103/S1068367409030112
[9] A. Vjyushkov, P. Malchikov and V. Syukov, “Breeding
Genetic Improvement of Spring Wheat,” Samara Agric
Research Institute, Samara, 2008, p. 546.
[10] C. J. T. Spitters, H. J. W. Van Roermund, H. G. M. G.
Van Nassau, J. Sohapur and J. Mesdag, “Genetic Varia-
tion in Partial Resistance to Leaf Rust in Winter Wheat.
Disease Progress, Foliage Senescence and Yield Reduc-
tion,” Biomedical and Life Sciences, Vol. 96, No. 1, 1990,
pp. 3-15. doi:10.1007/BF01976602
[11] J. H. Espino, R. P. Singh, S. Germa’n, B. D. McCallum,
R. F. Park, Q. W. S. Chen, C. Bhardwaj and H. Goyeau,
“Global Status of Wheat Leaf Rust Caused by Puccinia
triticina,” Euphytica, Vol. 179, No. 1, 2011, pp. 143-160.
doi:10.1007/s10681-011-0361-x
[12] I. Lowe, D. Cantu and J. Dubcovsky, “Durable Resis-
tance to the Wheat Rusts: Integrating Systems Biology
and Traditional Phenotype-Based Research Methods to

Allelic Relationship between Lr9 and the Leaf Rust Resistance Gene in Kharchia Local Mutant of Wheat691
Guide the Deployment of Resistance Genes,” Euphytica,
Vol. 179, No. 1, 2011, pp. 69-79.
doi:10.1007/s10681-010-0311-z
[13] L. Huang, L. Q. Zhang, B. L. Liu, Z. H. Yan, B. Zhang,
H. G. Y. L Zhang and D. C. Liu, “Molecular Tagging of a
Stripe Rust Resistance Gene in Aegilops Tauschii,”
Euphytica, Vol. 179, No. 2, 2011, pp. 313-318.
doi:10.1007/s10681-010-0330-9
[14] M. Baum, E. S. Laguadah and R. Appels, “Wide Crosses
in Cereals,” Annual Review of Plant Physiology and
Plant Molecular Biology, Vol. 43, 1992, pp. 117-143.
doi:10.1146/annurev.pp.43.060192.001001
[15] Z. A. Pretorius and C. M. Bender, “First Report of Viru-
lence for the Wheat Leaf Rust (Puccinia triticina) Resis-
tance Gene Lr32 in South Africa,” Plant Disease, Vol. 94,
No. 3, 2010, pp. 381.
doi:10.1094/PDIS-94-3-0381A
[16] S. C. Bhardwaj, M. Prashar, S. K. Jain, S. Kumar, Y. P.
Sharma, “Physiologic Specialization of Puccinia Triticina
on Wheat (Triticum Species) in India,” Indian Journal of
Agricultural Sciences, Vol. 80, 2010, pp. 805-881.
[17] E. R. Sears, “The Transfer of Leaf Rust Resistance from
Aegilops umbellulata into Wheat,” Brookhaven Symposia
in Biology, Vol. 9, 1956, pp. 1-21.
[18] A. S. Soliman, E. Y. Heyne and C. O. Johnston, “Resis-
tance to Leaf Rust in Wheat Derived from Chinese Ae-
gilops umbellulata Translocation Lines,” Crop Science,
Vol. 3, 1963, pp. 254-256.
doi:10.2135/cropsci1963.0011183X000300030025x
[19] S. Harjit, H. S. Dhaliwal and K. S. Gill, “A New Leaf
Rust Resistance Gene other than Lr9 in Kharchia Local
Mutant KLM4-3B,” Ann Wheat Newsl, Colorado State
Univ, Vol. 40, pp. 145-46.
[20] K. M. Devos, T. Millan and M. D. Gale, “Comparative
RFLP Maps of the Homoeologous Group-2 Chromo-
somes of Wheat, Rye and Barley,” Theoretical and Ap-
plied Genetics, Vol. 85, No. 6-7, 1993, pp. 784-92.
doi:10.1007/BF00225020
[21] F. Sacco, E. Y. Suarez and T. Naranjo, “Mapping of the
Leaf Rust Resistance Gene Lr3 on Chromosome 6B of
Sinvalocho MA Wheat,” Genome, Vol. 41, No. 5, 1998,
pp. 686-690.
[22] M. Mohan, S. Nain, A. T. G. B. Krishna, M. Y. Ano, C.
R. Bhatia and T. Saski, “Genome Mapping, Molecular
Markers and Marker-Assisted Selection in Crop Plants,”
International Crop Science Congress, Working Group on
Genome Mapping and Marker Assisted Selection in Plant
Breeding, New Delhi, 1996, pp. 999-1018.
doi:10.1007/BF00222911
[23] G. Schachermayr, M. Messmer, C. Feuillet, H. Winzeler,
M. Winzeler and B. Keller, “Identification of Molecular
Markers Linked to the Agropyron Elongatum-Derived
Leaf Rust Resistance Gene Lr24 in Wheat,” Theoretical
and Applied Genetics, Vol. 90, 1995, pp. 982-990.
[24] E. C. Stakman, D. M. Stewart and W. Q. Loegering,
“Identification of Physiological Races of Puccinia
graminis var. tritici,” US Department of Agricultural
Publications E617. USDA, Washington, DC, 1962.
[25] R. F. Peterson, A. B. Campbell and A. E. Hannah, “A
Diagramatic Scale for Estimating Rust Intensity of
Leaves and Stem of Cereals,” Canadian Journal of Re-
search, Vol. 26, 1948, pp. 496-500.
[26] R. N. Swahney, S. K. Nayar, S. D. Singh and L. B. Goel,
“A New Source of Resistance to Leaf Rust of Wheat,”
Plant Disease Reporter, Vol. 63, 1979, pp. 1048-1049.