Breeding and Development of Cucumber Green Mottle Mosaic Virus (CGMMV) Resistant Lines in Melon Cucumis melo L.)

admin

Cucurbit Genetics Cooperative Report 16:44-46 (article 16) 1993

T.A. More, A. Varma, V.S. Seshadri, R.G. Somkuwar, and L. Rajamony
Division of Vegetable Crops, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi – 110012, INDIA

In sub-tropical parts of India around Delhi, CGMMV has been found more common and dangerous than any other virus on melon (5, 6). A research project on breeding for CGMMV resistance in melon was started in 1984. A extensive research carried out enabled to identify the ‘Phoot’ or snap-melon (C. melo var. momordica), ‘Kachri’ (both non-dessert Indian types) and FM 1 as resistant to CGMMV (1, 3, 4). Back inoculation and transmission electron microscopic studies confirmed that they posess smptomless carrier nature of CGMMV resistance. ‘Phoot’ and FM 1 were utilized to incorporate the CGMMV resistance into Monoecious 4 (M4) and Pusa Modjuras (PM) respectively (Fig. 1).

The crosses ‘Phoot’ x M4 and FM 1 x PM were advanced to F2 by selfing. Progeny of the two crosses were studied independently. In F2 and F3 generaitons, sibbing between the selected CGMMV resistant plants was done in order to pool the resistant genes, keeping in view the polygenic recessive nature of inheritance of CGMMV resistance (2). From F4 to F8 generations selected plants were selfed to advance the generations. From F2 to F5 screening for CGMMV resistance was done in two stages. The seedling at cotyledonary stage was inoculated with pure isolate of CGMMV under artificial inoculation conditions in inselt-proof nethouse (in January-February) and selected resistant plants were transplanted in the field in the first week of March. They were again screened for CGMMV resistance under natural epiphytotic conditions and simultaneously selection was made for better horticultural characters and selected plants were sibbed (in F2 and F3) or selfed (in F4 to F5). From F6 to F8, generations were advanced by selfing. In F6 and F7 generations screening for CGMMV resistance was done under natural epiphytotic conditions. During F6 and F7 generations, performance for better horticultural characters was evaluated in the replicated yield trials. In F8, the level of CGMMV resistance was ascertained by employing the direct antigen coating ELISA technique after articifical inoculation with pure isolate of CGMMV.

Finally lines VRM 5-10, 29-1, 31-1, 31-2, 42-4, and 43-6 were selected from F5 to F10 which are highly resistant or resistant to CGMMV and possess better horticultural characters of economic importanct (Table 1).

Fig. 1. Breeding procedure, screening technique for CGMMV resistance and yield trials.

‘PHOOT’ x M4

FM1 x PM
(R)
(S)
(R)
(S)
F1 F1
(X) (X)
F2 Artificial screening – field screening – selection for better horticultural traits. F2
# #
F3 – do – F3
# #
F4 – do – F4
(X) (X)
F5 – do – F5
(X) (X)
F6 Field screening and yield trial F6
(X) (X)
F7 – do – F7
(X) (X)
F8 Artificial inoculation with CGMMV-screening by direct antigen coating ELISA technique. Selection of lines having CGMMV resistance and better horticultural traits. F8

(X) = selfed, # – Sibbed
Artificial inoculation was done with pure isolate of CGMMV.

Table 1. Evaluation of melon cultigens to CGMMV.

CGMMV reaction to PDI (%)y

Cultigensz

Field

Inoculation

Reactionz, x

Yield/plant (kg)w

T.S.S. (%)v
VRM-5-10 11.5 16.1 HR 1.165 9.2
VRM-29-1 12.3 20.9 HR 3.020 6.9
VRM-31-1-2 14.7 8.8 R 3.475 6.7
VRM-42-4 21.1 26.3 HR 1.880 7.7
VRM-43-6 33.5 2.5 R 1.626 7.4
Phoot (R)-Check 21.9 13.5 R 2.135 5.2
FM 1 (R)-Check 0.0 16.0 NT 1.090 8.9
Pusa Madhuras (S)-Check 67.5 62.6 HS 1.085 9.5
Monoecious-4 (S)-Check 80.1 81.6 HS 1.155 7.1

zR = resistaht, S = susceptible, HS = highly susceptible, NT = not tested.
yPDI – present disease index. Field results of avg. of 1 yr and inoculation results are from avg. of 3 separate screenings.
xDirect antigen coating ELISA technique was employed after artificial inoculation with pure isolate of CGMMV.
wAverage of 2 replicated yield trials.
vT.S.S. = total soluble solids.

Literature Cited

  1. More, T.A. and A. Varma. 1991. Breeding for virus resistance in muskmelon – (Cucumis melo L.). Golden Jubilee Symp. on Genetic Research and Education – Current Trends and the Nest Fifty Years, New Delhi, India. February 12 – 15, 1991. Abstract I : 184-185.
  2. Rajamony, L., T.A. More, and V.S. seshadri. 1990. Inheritance of resistance to cucumber green mottle mosaic virus in muskmelon (Cucumis melo L.). euphytica 47:93-97.
  3. Rajamony, L., T.A. More, V.S. Seshadri, and A. Varma. 1987/ resistance to cucumber green mottle mosaic virus (CGMMV) in muskmelon. Cucurbit Genet. Coop. Rpt. 10:58-59.
  4. Rajamony, L., T.A. More, V.S. Seshadri and A. Varma. 1990. Reaction of muskmelon collections to cucumber green mottle mosaic virus. Phytopath. Z. 129:237-244.
  5. Raychaudhuri, M. and A. Varma. 1975. Virus disease of cucurbits in Delhi. Proc. 62nd Indian Sci. Congr., Part III, p. 74.
  6. Raychaudhuri, M. and A. Varma. 1978. Mosaic disease of muskmelon caused by a minor variant of cucumber green mottle mosaic virus. Phytopath. Z. 93:120-125.