Research Article

Inheritance of bacterial spot resistance in Capsicum annuum var. annuum.

Published: April 20, 2017
Genet. Mol. Res. 16(2): gmr16029631 DOI:
Cite this Article:
L.R.A. Silva, R. Rodrigues, S. Pimenta, J.W.S. Correa, M.S.B. Araújo, C.S. Bento, C.P. Sudré (2017). Inheritance of bacterial spot resistance in Capsicum annuum var. annuum.. Genet. Mol. Res. 16(2): gmr16029631.


Since 2008, Brazil is the largest consumer of agrochemicals, which increases production costs and risks of agricultural products, environment, and farmers' contamination. Sweet pepper, which is one of the main consumed vegetables in the country, is on top of the list of the most sprayed crops. The bacterial spot, caused by Xanthomonas spp, is one of the most damaging diseases of pepper crops. Genetic resistant consists of a suitable way of disease control, but development of durable resistant cultivars as well as understanding of plant-bacterium interaction is being a challenge for plant breeders and pathologists worldwide. Inheritance of disease resistance is often variable, depending on genetic background of the parents. The knowledge of the genetic base controlling such resistance is the first step in a breeding program aiming to develop new genotypes, bringing together resistance and other superior agronomic traits. This study reports the genetic basis of bacterial spot resistance in Capsicum annuum var. annuum using mean generation analysis from crosses between accessions UENF 2285 (susceptible) and UENF 1381 (resistant). The plants of each generation were grown in a greenhouse and leaflets were inoculated with bacterial strain ENA 4135 at 10 CFU/mL in 1.0 cm of the mesophyll. Evaluations were performed using a scoring scale whose grades ranged from 1.0 (resistant) to 5.0 (susceptible), depending on symptom manifestation. Genetic control of bacterial spot has a quantitative aspect, with higher additive effect. The quantitative analysis showed that five genes were the minimum number controlling bacterial spot resistance. Additive effect was higher (6.06) than dominant (3.31) and explained 86.36% of total variation.