Phenotypic data
The phenotyping of jassid injury has been observed in 1
st BED plants (Fig 1). The plants were divided into several groups and have been plotted according to their arrangement in the field. The groups were 36 ‘7076 Donor Parents’ arranged in 4 rows, 35 ‘7082 Donor Parents’ arranged in 4 rows, 38 ‘BS-1 susceptible check plants’ arranged in 4 rows, 51 ‘R-1 resistance check plants’ in five rows. Every plant in 1ST BED has been observed for the jassid made injuries and were scaled according to the damage caused to the plants. Among the 36 ‘7076 donor parent plants’ 32 plants have been observed with no damage on leaves and rest 4 with low or negligible damage. Among the 35 ‘7085 donor parent plants’ 30 plants have been noticed devoid of any damage and the rest 5 with low damage. Fig 2, depicts the damage in terms of individual leaves.
Two plants exhibited no damage, 20 plants low damage, 14 plants medium damage and 4 plants high damage among 35 BS-1 susceptible check plants. Among the 51 ‘R-1 resistance check plants’ 34 were observed with no damage and 17 with low damage. Phenotypic variations of these 1478 F
2 generation plants were screened and recorded.
Based on the observed phenotype grade, 89 plants from each grade have been selected for genotyping with SSR markers. All the data regarding the phenotypic variations observed in a population of 267 plants is for a single trait
i.e., sucking pest trait. Table 3 represents the phenotypic statistics of ‘jassid pest impact’ over 267 samples. The mean impact of jassid is obtained as 2.0075 which is almost susceptible to jassid as per the scoring table (Table 1). The values for skewness and kurtosis have not been obtained as perfect but are very close to representing a normal distribution. The slight negative value indicates a left side weightage, but since skewness is almost ‘0’, a normal distribution is implied. Kurtosis value signifies the heaviness of the tail and the observed value is not significant enough to imply a very sharp peak in distribution. Although there were four categories based on Table 1, but all the plants showed variations to a maximum category of 3,
i.e., none of the plants showed any extreme phenotypic traits due to the pests (category 4). The W-test, which provides an epistatic insight between the control and the test, indicates that the pest resistant trait in study is not significantly affecting the other traits.
Single marker analysis
A total of 4348 markers (https://www.cottongen.org) were used to identify the polymorphic markers between resistance and resistance gene. Among the 4348 markers, 29 markers have been found to be polymorphic between parental genotype,
i.e., RS-1 vs BS-1, but only 17 have been found to be useful for further analysis. These 17 markers that were recognised for further genotypic analysis were BNL2440, BNL3280, BNL3443, BNL3594, CM45, HAU1321, HAU2748, JESPER235, NAU2443, MUSB1166, BNL1646, BNL1227, DPL0442, TMB0471, BNL1694, DOW047 and HAU0876. Using these markers, a genotypic analysis has been carried out for 267 plants and the results after chi-square analysis has been shown in Table 4. All the markers have shown co-dominance except CM45, JESPER235 and DPL0442 and all other markers indicated significance at a minimum of 95% confidence interval.
Marker trait association
The marker trait association was performed for all the screened 17 markers and the results showed that two markers
viz., BNL1646 and DOW047 had significant variance. The markers have shown high LOD values of 4.508 and 7.2297 respectively. Also, they have shown high PVE values as 6.5784 and 10.308 respectively, as compared to other markers. The Marker Trait Association results are tabulated and displayed in Table 5. The observed significant markers are presented in bold. The results obtained from the Marker Trait Association analysis indicates that BNL1646 and DOW047 are the markers which can be considered for ‘jassid pest control’ among the various markers used for screening and selection.
Marker correlation
Further, marker correlation has been analysed to check the links between the same and to identify any underlying connection. The resultsare shown in Table 6 and indicates significantly good positive correlation between the following markers: CM5 and JESPER235, HAU1231 and HAU2748, JESPER235 and DPL0442; while a moderate positive correlation was observed between the following markers: BNL3280 and NAU2443, NAU2443 and MUSB1166. These correlations have been marked in light brick for distinction. Very weak negative correlations have been noticed among few of the markers, but none of them were significant. No significant marker correlation has been observed for BNL1646 and DOW047, which ascertains no underlying divergence from the observed results from Marker Trait Association. The rows and columns corresponding to both BNL1646 and DOW047 are marked in light green colour.