Next Article in Journal
Carbon Metabolism Characteristics of Rhizosphere Soil Microbial Communities in Different-Aged Alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) and Their Covarying Soil Factors in the Semi-Arid Loess Plateau
Next Article in Special Issue
Integrated Metabolome and Transcriptome Analysis Reveals the Mechanism of Anthocyanin Biosynthesis in Pisum sativum L. with Different Pod Colors
Previous Article in Journal
Silver Nanoparticles Alter the Diazotrophic Community Structure and Co-Occurrence Patterns in Maize Rhizosphere
Previous Article in Special Issue
Molecular Characterization of an EMS-Induced Ab-γg-Rich Saponin Mutant in Soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr.)
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Improvement of Morkhor 60-3 Upland Rice Variety for Blast and Bacterial Blight Resistance Using Marker–Assisted Backcross Selection

1
Department of Agronomy, Faculty of Agriculture, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen 40002, Thailand
2
Plant Breeding Research Center for Sustainable Agriculture, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen 40002, Thailand
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2025, 15(7), 1600; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15071600
Submission received: 15 May 2025 / Revised: 17 June 2025 / Accepted: 27 June 2025 / Published: 30 June 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Crop Molecular Breeding and Genetics—2nd Edition)

Abstract

Morkhor 60-3 is an upland rice variety primarily cultivated in northeastern Thailand. This glutinous rice is valued for its adaptability and rich aroma but remains susceptible to significant diseases, particularly blast and bacterial blight. Using resistant varieties represents the most cost-effective approach to address this limitation. This study incorporated the QTLs/genetic markers qBl1, qBl2, and xa5 from Morkhor 60-1 through marker-assisted backcrossing. From the BC1F3 population, ten lines were selected based on their parentage and evaluated for blast resistance using a spray inoculation method with 12 isolates of Pyricularia oryzae, and for bacterial blight (BB) resistance using a leaf-clipping method with nine isolates of Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae. Broad-spectrum resistance (BSR) was also assessed in the lines for both diseases. Subsequently, BC1F4 lines were evaluated for field performance, including agronomic traits and aroma. Results identified three superior lines, BC1F4 22-7-140-4, BC1F4 22-7-322-5, and BC1F4 22-7-311-9, that demonstrated resistance to both BB and blast pathogens with average BSR values of 0.61 and 1.00, 0.66 and 1.00, and 0.55 and 0.87, respectively. These lines also exhibited enhanced performance in flowering date, plant height, panicle number per plant, grain number per plant, and grain weight. These findings demonstrate the effectiveness of marker-assisted selection (MAS) for gene pyramiding in rice improvement.

1. Introduction

Upland rice is predominantly cultivated in rain-fed areas of Northeast Thailand. Sakon Nakhon is the most widely grown upland rice variety in this region. This variety was developed from a cross between Hom Aom and RD10 varieties. Sakon Nakhon is a glutinous, high-quality, non-photosensitive rice with yields of 2918 kg/ha that thrives in irrigated and rain-fed conditions. However, Sakon Nakhon is susceptible to blast and bacterial blight (BB) diseases and brown plant hopper infestations, which cause significant damage to Thailand’s agricultural sector [1].
Blast is a fungal disease caused by Pyricularia oryzae [2]. Its spores occur naturally and are dispersed by wind. Symptoms can appear on all above-ground plant parts, including leaf blades (leaf blast), leaf sheaths, internodes, nodes, and panicles (neck or panicle blast). Meanwhile, bacterial blight, which is caused by Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae (Xoo), can develop year-round, particularly in high-humidity environments [3]. Both diseases cause severe crop losses throughout the world and Asia [4,5]. While utilizing resistant varieties represents the most effective and economical control strategy, conventional breeding for multiple traits or genes is complex and time-consuming [6]. Therefore, integrating molecular markers with traditional breeding approaches offers an efficient pathway for developing resistant varieties.
DNA markers associated with genes of interest for blast and bacterial blight (BB) resistance that have been well documented have been a significant focus in plant pathology and breeding [7]. To date, researchers have identified more than 122 blast resistance genes, including 66 major genes such as Pi27(t), Pita, Pi54, Pid2, Pi9, Pi2, Pizt, Pi36, Pi37, Pikm, Pi5, Pit, Pid3, pi21, and Pitb [8,9,10]. and 17 minor resistance genes such as Pir2-3, Pirf2-1(t), Pi30(t) Pi31 (t), and Pi32(t) [11,12]. In addition, approximately 39 blast resistance genes have been cloned and characterized, such as Pi54 Pik-p [13,14]. Part of the resistance gene to BB disease has more than 40 resistance genes that have been reported for bacterial blight, including Xa-1, Xa-2, Xa-3, and xa-5 [15,16,17]. These molecular markers linked to resistance genes have been successfully employed in rice breeding programs. For instance, P0489 varieties carrying blast resistance QTLs on chromosomes 1 and 11, flanked by SSR markers RM319/RM212 and RM48/RM207, respectively, have been used to enhance blast resistance. Similarly, SSR markers RM224/RM144 and RM313/RM277, linked to blast-resistant QTLs on chromosomes 2 and 12 in Jao Hom Nil (JHN), have been utilized in blast resistance breeding [18,19]. For BB resistance breeding, the IR62266 variety carrying xa5 on chromosome 5, flanked by markers RM212 and RM159, has proven valuable [20]. These molecular markers have been combined with other resistance genes to achieve broad-spectrum resistance, selecting alleles with significant effects on high-value traits with relatively simple inheritance patterns.
Several advanced techniques are being developed to enhance broad-spectrum disease resistance in plants, especially marker-assisted pyramiding (MAP). MAP effectively combines multiple genes/QTLs for traits of interest (such as disease resistance, insect tolerance, and abiotic stress tolerance). This approach allows breeders to efficiently select for multiple resistance traits simultaneously, thereby improving the durability and overall effectiveness of plant defense mechanisms against a wide range of stresses [21,22]. By pyramiding multiple resistance genes, MAP significantly reduces the risk of resistance breakdown, a common limitation of single-gene resistance strategies [23]. Numerous studies have demonstrated the successful application of this method in integrating multiple resistance genes into elite cultivars. For example, Suwannual et al. [24] combined blast resistance genes in crosses between RD6 × P0489 (qBl2, qBl11) and RD6 × JHN (qBl1, qBl12) through marker-assisted selection (MAS), producing BC2F3 1-13-17-52 and BC2F3 1-28-8-37 lines that exhibited resistance to blast with a broad-spectrum resistance (BSR) of 0.6. Consequently, a near-isogenic line (NIL) of the RD6 variety, BC2F3 6-1/15-1-50, carrying qBl1, qBl2, qBl11, and qBl12, demonstrated strong resistance with high BSR against Thai Xoo isolates [25]. In our previous study, Srichant et al. [26] improved upland rice Sakon Nakhon (SKN) for blast resistance through MAS, resulting in NIL SKN 39-10-19-29-12 BK-6-7, which showed resistance to both blast and neck blast diseases. This improved variety was subsequently certified as “Morkhor 60-3”.
Despite these improvements, Morkhor 60-3 carries only two blast resistance genes, potentially limiting its durability as pathogens adapt. Additionally, it remains susceptible to bacterial blight. Therefore, this study aims to combine genes/QTLs (qBl1, qBl2, and xa5) through marker-assisted backcrossing (MAB) to enhance blast and bacterial blight resistance in Morkhor 60-3.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Population Development Using Marker-Assisted Selection

To develop the breeding population, we crossed our line, SKN-39-10-19-29-12-BK-6-7 (Morkhor 60-3) (qBl11 and qBl12), with the donor parent Morkhor 60-1, which possesses additional blast resistance QTLs (qBl1 and qBl2) along with the BB resistance gene xa5 [27]. The resulting F1 plant was then backcrossed to Morkhor 60-3 to create a BC1F1 population. Following this, self-pollination was conducted for one cycle to develop the BC1F2 generation. During the development of the F1, BC1F1, and BC1F2 populations, marker-assisted selection (MAS) was employed to select for specific alleles. The BC1F3 generation was tested for blast and BB resistance under greenhouse conditions. Agronomic traits, yield, and yield components were also evaluated under field conditions. Finally, the BC1F4 generation was validated for seed quality and aroma (Figure 1).
MAS was used for selecting resistance alleles. SSR marker franking to four blast resistance QTLs and the BB resistance gene were employed for MAS, including four SSR flanking markers, RM562/RM212 and RM71/RM109, associated with blast resistant QTLs on chromosomes 1 and 2, and two markers, RM164/RM1089, associated with the BB resistant gene on chromosome 5, according to the marker details described by Pinta et al. [27]. BC1F1 and BC1F2 populations were selected using MAS for blast and BB resistance. Total genomic DNA from young leaves of each rice plant, lines, and their parent were extracted according to the method described by Doyle and Doyle [28] with slight modifications. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for SSR markers was carried out at a volume of 15 µL, containing 25 ng of genomic DNA, 1X PCR buffer concentration, 0.2 µM MgCl2, five µM reverse and forward primers, 10 mM dNTP, 7.35 µL dH2O, and 0.5-unit Taq DNA polymerase. DNA amplification was performed in a DNA thermal cycler for 94 °C for 5 min, followed by 35 cycles of denaturation at 94 °C for 30 s, primer annealing at 55 °C for 30 s, primer extension at 72 °C for 60 s, and final extension at 72 °C for 7 min. The amplification products were separated on a 4% polyacrylamide gel by electrophoresis. The line selection in the F1, BC1F1, BC1F2, and BC1F3 generations was performed through MAS for blast and BB resistance. The homozygous resistant genotype of those genes and/or QTLs was identified and allowed to self to deliver BC1F3 for greenhouse and field validation.

2.2. Evaluation of Blast and Bacterial Blight Resistance

For blast resistance evaluation, 18 lines/varieties, including a standard (SKN), donor parent (Morkhor 60-1), recurrent parent (Morkhor 60-3), and resistant and susceptible checks (P0489, Jao Hom Nin, IR64, KDML105, and RD6 varieties), were used for blast disease resistance tests at Ubon Ratchathani Rice Research Center, Thailand, in 2023–2024. The experiment was laid out as a factorial arrangement in a completely randomized design (CRD) with three replications. The treatments included genotypes that were analyzed as fixed effects. Soil preparation involved mixing rice husk ash with chemical fertilizer to improve soil structure and nutrient availability. A total of 74 kg N/ha of nitrogen fertilizer was applied in three split doses at 9, 12, and 17 days after planting (DAP).
Then, ten plants were grown with seeds for each replication in plastic boxes (24 × 37 × 12 cm). Blast resistance evaluation was performed at the seedling stage. The twelve P. oryzae isolates from Thailand (STN22063, SRN16371, SRN16381, PSL16358, PRE16415, PSL16362, STN22069, PML16295, UBN21008, STN22068, STN22066, and UBN21028) and (Figure 2) were used for the blast inoculation with the spraying method [29].
To prepare blast inoculum, P. oryzae were grown on rice polish agar (RPA) and incubated for 7–14 days at 25 °C. Sporulation was induced with sterilized rice leaves on a petri dish used to contain mycelium or a spreader and incubated at 25 °C under fluorescent or black light for 3–5 days [30]. Spore suspensions were counted using a hemocytometer (under a compound microscope) after adjusting spore concentrations with water to 5 × 105 spores/mL, and the suspension was mixed with a polyoxymethylene (Tween 20®) at a ratio of 10 μL/100 mL [31]. The spore suspension was sprayed onto the 24-day-old seedlings using the Badger 150® sprayer, with a volume of 30 mL. The inoculated seedlings were then incubated in a moist chamber at 25–28 °C and high humidity for 16–18 h. Then, they were relocated to an air-conditioned room for 7 days. The symptoms of blast infection were identified and rated when seedlings began to exhibit signs of infection, following the standard evaluation system for rice (SES) [32]. Blast scores were analyzed for the severity index (SI) using the method described by Sirithanya [33]: highly resistant = 0, resistant (0 < SI ≤ 20), moderate resistant (20 < SI ≤ 40), moderate susceptible (40 < SI ≤ 60), susceptible (60 < SI ≤ 80), and highly susceptible (80 < SI ≤ 100) (Figure 3).
In the case of BB resistance evaluation, ten lines of BC1F3 and 7 varieties were included; SKN, Morkhor 60-3 and Morkhor 60-1 (with the standard recurrent and donor parent checks) resistance check varieties; (IR62266 and IRBB5), and (KDML105 and RD6 as susceptible checks) were used for BB resistance evaluation against nine isolates of Xoo distributed across Thailand (SP1-1, NB7-7, NY1-1, CN2-1, CM4-1, UT2-1, NB7-8, MS1-2, and PR5-1) (Figure 2). The experiment was conducted at Khon Kean University, Thailand, in 2022 and laid out by a factorial experiment in a completely randomized design (CRD) with three replications. The inoculum of nine Xoo isolates was prepared with a pure culture of single Xoo isolates that was multiplied on a nutrient agar (NA) medium following the method of a cross-streak plate. The cell suspension of each Xoo isolate was derived by mixing the bacterial inoculum on NA agar with sterile distilled water. The final bacterial colony was suspended in sterilized distilled water and spectrophotometrically adjusted to a concentration of 109 CFU/mL (OD = 0.3 at 600 nm) [34]. The inoculation was conducted at the seedling stage (21 days) using the clipping method [35]. At seven days after inoculation, the plant reaction to BB was measured in terms of lesion length on plants. The plants with BB lesion lengths of 0–5, 5.1–10, 10.1–15, and >15 cm were considered to be resistant (R), moderately resistant (MR), moderately susceptible (MS), and susceptible (S), respectively, in this study [36], as shown in Figure 4.

2.3. Evaluation of Agronomic Traits, Yield Components, and Seed Quality

Thirteen lines and varieties, consisting of 10 near-isogenic lines (NILs), standard variety (SKN), recurrent parent (Morkhor 60-3), and donor parent (Morkhor 60-1), were used for validation. The experiment was laid out in a randomized complete block design (RCBD) with four replications at Khon Kean University’s field crop research station in 2022–2023. Each plot contained two rows, 1.80 m long, spaced 20 cm apart and 20 cm between rows and within rows, respectively. Agronomic traits and yield components, including days to flowering (DF), plant height (PH), panicle length (PL), number of panicles per plant, number of total grains per panicle, 1000-grain weight (GW), harvest index (HI), and yield, were recorded from four plants of each plot.
After harvesting, seeds of each line were assessed for seed quality and aroma. Grain physical quality includes measurements of grain size, taken from the length and breadth of paddy and whole grains. Subsequently, the length/breadth ratio (L/B ratio) is calculated based on the guidelines from IRRI [32]: slender = over 3.0, medium = 2.1 to 3.0, bold = 1.1 to 2.2, and round = less than 1.1 (unit: mm.), and compared with their recurrent parent Mor khor 60-3. In terms of the aromatic test, seed aromatic evaluation was determined through 2-acetyl-1-pyrroline (2AP) content by gas chromatography analysis [37], together with separation mass spectrometer (GC/MS) content following the methods of Sriseadka et al. [38].

2.4. Data Analysis

Disease severity index (SI) for blast was performed according to the method of using the following Formula (1), as described by Sirithanya [33]:
SI = [∑(Ni × Vi)/(V × N)] × 100
Ni is the number of plants tested in each level, Vi is the disease score at various levels assessed by the plant number, V is the maximum score used in the evaluation, and N is the total number of plants used in the test.
Broad-spectrum resistance (BSR) for blast and BB was calculated using the formula described by Ahn [39].
B S R = S T
When S = the number of pathogen isolates to which the rice line shows resistance, T = the total number of pathogen isolates tested. The BSR value ranges from 0 to 1; a BSR of 0 revealed that the rice is susceptible to all isolates. Meanwhile, a BSR of 1 showed that the rice resists all isolates.
Statistical analysis was conducted to evaluate the interaction between isolates of P. oryzae and X. oryzae with different rice strains and was performed according to the method of using the following formula:
Yijk =µ + Gi + lj + (G l)ij + εijk
where Yijk is the dependent variable, µ is the overall mean, Gi is the effect of the line (i, treatment ewes and control ewes), lj is the effect of the isolate (j, the day of sponge insertion and removal), and (G × l)ij represents the interaction between line i and isolate j, and eijk is the residual error.
Blast scores, BB disease lesion length, agronomic traits, and seed quality data were analyzed by variance analysis and. According to Gomez and Gomez [40], means comparisons were calculated using the Tukey’s honestly significant difference (HSD) formula:
H S D = q M S w n
where q = the standardized range statistic.
M S w = The mean square for within groups from the ANOVA;
n = the number of subjects in each group (all groups must be of equal size).
These were performed by the STATISTIC 10 program (Copyright© 1985–2013, Analytical Software, 2105 Miller Landing Rd., Tallahassee, FL, USA).

3. Results

3.1. Development of Introgression Lines Using Marker-Assisted Selection

This research aimed to establish a population. An F1 generation was initially created by crossing Morkhor 60-3 and Morkhor 60-1, resulting in 43 plants. From this group, 37 heterozygous individuals were confirmed using MAS (RM319/RM562). Next, 15 of 37 plants used to produce F1 plants were backcrossed with Mor Khor 60-3, leading to the generation of 108 backcross (BC1F1) plants. Eight plants were identified as heterozygous for resistance at two QTLs and one gene. Eight plants were identified, and four were selected to develop the population through self-fertilization. This process generated a total of 1250 plants, designated as BC1F2. This group identified ten plants as homozygous for resistance linked to the qBl1, qBl2, and xa5. These ten lines were self-fertilized again, producing the BC1F3 and BC1F4 generations (Figure 1).

3.2. Validation of Bacterial Blight Resistance

Ten lines of BC1F3 of Morkhor 60-3 introgression with a homozygous allele of the BB resistant QTLs and xa5 gene were validated for BB resistance under greenhouse conditions. The data analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed that the genotype (G) and the interaction between genotype and isolate (G × I) were significant (Table 1) Individuals’ genotypes were directly affected by different BB isolates, demonstrating that the BB resistance is not only dependent on the genetic makeup of the lines but also influenced by the strains of the pathogen.
Evaluating BB resistance in isolates MS1-2 showed lesion lengths of lines BC1F3 22-7-60 and BC1F3 22-11-312 of 9.0 cm and 9.1 cm. In contrast, isolates NB7-8 and MS1-2 exhibited lesion length/reaction on the Morkhor 60-1 variety as 5.5 cm and 6.8 cm (moderate resistance). These results demonstrate that lesion length induced by BB infection is a key indicator of host resistance. Meanwhile, the BC1F3 lines carrying the xa5 gene observed varying resistance levels, with BSR values ranging from 0.55 to 0.77. Among these lines, BC1F3 22-11-312, BC1F3 22-11-131, BC1F3 22-15-298, and BC1F3 22-15-311 demonstrated high BSR values of 0.77, 0.72, 0.77, and 0.55, respectively. In comparison, the parental lines, Morkhor 60-1 and Morkhor 60-3, displayed BSR values of 0.88 and 0.38, respectively. Additionally, varieties tested—Sakon Nakhon (standard check), IRBB5 IR62266 (resistant control), and RD6 KDML105 (susceptible control) —showed BSR values of 0.05, 1.00, 0.88, 0.05, and 0.00, respectively. The results indicate that the standard varieties exhibit varying levels of resistance and susceptibility to diseases (Table 2).

3.3. Validation of Blast Resistance

The analysis of variance (ANOVA) conducted on the selected BC1F3 lines and check varieties revealed significant effects from the isolate (I), genotype (G), and their interaction (G × I). This indicates specific gene-for-gene interactions, resulting in novel phenotypes not observed in the parental lines (Table 1). In BC1F3, ten introgression lines demonstrated resistance to blast disease with a BSR of 0.66–1.00 (Table 3). Notably, four of these lines, including BC1F3 22-7-140, BC1F3 22-7-322, and two additional lines (BC1F3 22-15-298 and BC1F3 22-15-311), achieved high BSR values of 1.00, 1.00, 0.95, and 0.87, respectively (Table 3). In comparison, the parental lines, Morkhor 60-1 and Morkhor 60-3, had BSR values of 0.66 and 0.62, respectively. Furthermore, as expected, all resistant check varieties P0489 JHN and IR64 resisted most blast disease isolates with BSR values ranging from 0.95 to 1.00. These high BSR values indicate a high resistance level to the blast disease, making these lines potentially beneficial for further breeding efforts to improve disease resistance in rice. Additionally, RD6 showed resistance to three blast isolates: STN22063, PRE16415, and PML16295 (Table 3). These findings suggest that the introgression of multiple genes and QTLs influences the expression of a gene that plays a significant role in providing resistance to the pathogen.

3.4. Agronomic Traits and Yield Components

Based on the evaluation of agronomic traits and yield components under field conditions, the results revealed significant differences in days to flowering, plant height, panicle length, and 1000-grain weight. However, no significant differences were observed in the number of panicles per plant, total grains per panicle, harvest index, and grain yield (Table 4). These findings suggest that hybrid performance in terms of yield remained relatively stable, despite variability in certain agronomic traits.
Therefore, the selection of significant traits was based on performance not inferior to the check variety, Morkhor 60-3. Several BC1F4 lines—including BC1F4 22-7-140-4, BC1F4 22-7-322-5, and BC1F4 22-15-311-9—demonstrated that the improved, early-maturing hybrids achieved statistically higher values in key agronomic traits, indicating superior performance compared to the check variety.
Together, evaluations were focused on the aroma and seed size of paddy and brown grain. All the evaluated traits showed high significance among lines. Additionally, the mean comparison for 2AP content showed that all improved lines were more fragrant than their recurrent parent Morkhor 60-3 (8.42 ppm), as 2AP content of all improved lines ranged from 7.31 to 12.70 ppm (Table 5). BC1F4 22-15-311-9 and BC1F4 22-15-298-11 showed the highest 2AP content with 10.79 and 12.70 ppm among improved lines (Table 5). Compared to Morkhor 60-3, the introgressed lines showed higher aromaticity than the donor and recurrent parent, demonstrating that the inheritance of traits results from transgressive segregation.
The selection criteria for seed shape among the 10 BC1F4 lines focused on achieving similarity to the recurrent parents. The analysis revealed significant variations in paddy size, particularly concerning the length/breadth (L/B) ratio. Three lines, including BC1F4 22-7-140-4, BC1F4 22-7-322-5, BC1F4 22-15-311-9, and the Morkhor 60-3 variety, exhibited L/B ratios of 4.12, 3.86, 3.87, and 3.96 mm, with brown rice size, grain length, and L/B ratio showing 3.26, 3.25, 3.44, and 3.28 mm, respectively. This indicates that these lines had seed shapes close to the desired phenotype. The favorable L/B ratios suggest potential for improved agronomic performance and alignment with market preferences (Table 5). Moreover, the superior grain quality of the selected lines demonstrated grain characteristics similar to those of the RP Sakon Nakhon (Figure 5).

4. Discussion

Conventional breeding methods, a selective methodology based on superior performance, often rely on weighing, measuring, and visual assessments of phenotypic traits. However, these techniques are not always accurate, as they depend heavily on the breeders’ subjective evaluation and are limited in their ability to assess multiple traits simultaneously [41,42]. In contrast, gene introgression is a vital technique in plant breeding that facilitates the transfer of genetic material between different plant strains. Typically, the process involves multiple rounds of backcrossing, a careful undertaking designed to ensure that the newly developed variety retains the beneficial characteristics of the recurrent parent while incorporating desirable traits from the donor plant [43].
In recent years, advancements in molecular techniques have transformed breeding practices through marker-assisted selection (MAS). MAS is especially effective for complex traits influenced by multiple quantitative trait loci (QTLs), such as disease resistance, drought tolerance, and yield, and significantly speeds up the breeding process [44]. MAS enhances the breeding process by accurately identifying specific gene alleles associated with desirable traits. This allows for a more precise assessment of both the advantages and potential limitations at the genetic level, significantly increasing the likelihood of successfully incorporating beneficial characteristics into new plant varieties [45]. Furthermore, the precision offered by MAS significantly fortifies conventional breeding practices by diminishing reliance on phenotypic screening. This method can be sensitive to variations in environmental conditions and often requires multiple generations to achieve reliable evaluations [46]. This study utilized MAS to achieve genotypic selection for two blast-resistant (QTLs, qBl1 and qBl2) and one bacterial blight (BB)-resistant gene, xa5. This method showed high efficiency in the BC1F3 generation, requiring approximately 2.5 to 3 years. Subsequently, disease resistance was evaluated in the selected lines.
The BB disease was artificially inoculated using the clipping method. The rice varieties IRBB5 and IR62266 showed differences in their introgression for BB isolate IR1545, which is well-known as a standard resistant variety in breeding programs [47,48]. Meanwhile, the Morkhor 60-1 variety showed lesion lengths of 5.5 cm and 6.8 cm, demonstrating moderate resistance to the isolates NB7-8 and MS1-2 (Table 2). Several factors contribute to the reduced resistance in plants: (1) Mutations in the xa5 gene affect their effectiveness against certain pathogen strains [49]. Consistent with observations by Ancheta et al. [50], studies have shown that Xoo isolates in central Thailand have successfully adapted to the xa5 resistance gene. (2) The variety Morkhor 60-1 showed a loss of resistance over time, indicating that even well-established resistant varieties may eventually succumb to evolving pathogen populations, increasing disease severity [51]. (3) The isolates used for resistance testing were sourced from various regions (Figure 2). This variability can affect the expression and functionality of resistance genes against diverse pathogen populations [52]. Additionally, the resistance efficacy of rice varieties of the gene-for-gene interaction rule depends on the specific genes present in each rice variety and the type of isolate [53].
Based on the severity index and reaction to rice blast disease results, three resistant check varieties—P0489, Jao Hom Nin, and IR64—showed similar resistance levels to the blast disease. This study focuses specifically on their resistance. The isolates STN22063, PSL16362, and STN22063 demonstrated the susceptibility levels of both the donor and the recurrent parent. In greenhouse conditions, the ten lines exhibited more blast susceptibility rating (BSR) than resistance during the seeding stage, except for BC1F3 22-11-187 and RD6, which showed resistance to most of the blast disease isolates: STN22063, PRE16415, and PML16295 (Table 3), indicating that the introgression of multiple QTLs affects gene expression levels [54]. However, the combined influence of major and minor genes from the donor and recurrent parents may not protect against specific isolates effectively. Moreover, epistatic interactions among these genes can also impact disease resistance [55].
Additionally, the characteristics of seed shape, specifically length and breadth, and aromatic traits in the BC1F4 generation were found to exceed those of both the donor and recurrent parents. This enhancement is attributed to transgressive segregation. These observations indicate that backcrossing can effectively introgress and preserve specific traits, leading to significant improvements. Additionally, the selected lines can serve as valuable genetic resources for developing resistance to diseases like blast and BB, making these lines useful for agricultural extension programs.

5. Conclusions

This study has successfully developed an improved Sakon Nakhon variety (Morkhor 60-3) through pyramiding of resistance QTLs (qBl1, qBl2) and gene (xa5) into the BC1F3 generation. Selected plants were rigorously evaluated for resistance to blast and bacterial blight diseases under greenhouse conditions. At the same time, the BC1F4 generation was assessed for key agricultural quality traits, including seed shape and aroma (2AP content). The results identified three promising lines, BC1F4 22-7-140-4, BC1F4 22-7-322-5, and BC1F4 22-7-311-9, demonstrating effective resistance to blast and bacterial blight diseases. Importantly, these introgression lines maintained agronomic traits, seed shape characteristics, and aroma profiles closely resembling those of Morkhor 60-3 (the Sakon Nakhon improved line carrying blast-resistant QTLs). This successful combination of disease resistance with desirable quality traits represents a significant advancement in developing resilient rice varieties that meet both production challenges and consumer preferences.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.C. and J.S.; methodology, S.P., C.N., T.W., S.C., J.S.; validation, S.P., T.M.; data curation, S.P., J.S.; writing—original draft preparation, S.P., C.N., T.W., S.C., J.S.; writing—review and editing, S.P., S.C.; supervision, J.S.; project administration, J.S.; funding acquisition, S.P. and J.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research is partially supported by the Plant Breeding Research Center for Sustainable Agriculture, Khon Kaen University.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

Greenhouse evaluation for blast disease and aroma testing of this research were kindly supported from the Plant Disease Department, Ubon Ratchathani Rice Research Center (URRC).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. The Rice Department. Rice Knowledge Bank: Rice Varieties. 2016. Available online: http://www.knowledgebank.irri.org/step-by-step-production/pre-planting/rice-varieties (accessed on 30 May 2021).
  2. Ou, S.H. Rice Diseases, 2nd ed.; Commonwealth Mycological Institute: Kew, UK, 1980; p. 380. Available online: https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=1958442 (accessed on 18 January 2021).
  3. The Rice Department. Rice Knowledge Bank: Blast Disease and Bacterial Blight Disease. 2021. Available online: http://www.knowledgebank.irri.org/training/fact-sheets/pest-management/diseases (accessed on 30 May 2021).
  4. Shahriar, S.A.; Imtiaz, A.A.; Hossain, B.; Husna, A.; Eaty, N.K. Rice Blast Disease. Annu. Res. Rev. Biol. 2020, 1, 50–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Djatmiko, H.A.; Prakoso, B.; Prihatiningsih, N. Penentuan Patotipe Dan Keragman Genetik Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae Pada Tanaman Padidi Wilayah Karesidenan Banyumas. J. Hama Dan Penyakit Tumbuh. Tropika 2011, 11, 35–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Jiang, G.L. Molecular Markers and Marker-Assisted Breeding in Plants. In Plant Breeding from Laboratories to Fields; Andersen, S.B., Ed.; Intech Open: London, UK, 2013; pp. 45–83. Available online: https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/40178 (accessed on 14 May 2025).
  7. Akhtar, S.; Bhat, M.A.; Wani, S.A.; Bhat, K.A.; Chalkoo, S.; Mir, M.R.; Wani, S.A. Marker-assisted selection in rice. Phytology 2010, 10, 66–81. [Google Scholar]
  8. Pedrozo, R.; Osakina, A.; Huang, Y.; Nicolli, C.P.; Wang, L.; Jia, Y. Status on Genetic Resistance to Rice Blast Disease in the Post-Genomic Era. Plant 2025, 14, 807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Kalia, S.; Rathour, R. Current status on mapping of genes for resistance to leaf- and neck-blast disease in rice. Biotechnology 2019, 9, 209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Sun, H.; Wu, L.; Guo, L.; Song, F.; Zheng, Z.; Cheng, Z. Genetic analysis and molecular mapping of Pitb with broad-spectrum resistance to Magnaporthe oryzae in rice. Euphytica 2016, 209, 547–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Utami, M.D.; Moeljopawiro, S.; Aswidinnoor, H.; Setiawan, A.; Hanarida, I. Blast resistance genes in wild rice Oryza rufipogon and rice cultivar IR64. SABRAO J. Breed. Genetics 2008, 1, 71–76. [Google Scholar]
  12. Liang, Z.; Wang, L.; Pan, Q. A New Recessive Gene Conferring Resistance Against Rice Blast. Rice 2016, 9, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Sharma, T.R.; Rai, A.K.; Gupta, S.K.; Singh, N.K. Broad-spectrum Blast Resistance Gene Pi-k h Cloned from Rice Line Tetep Designated as Pi54. J. Plant Biochem. Biotechnol. 2010, 19, 87–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Yuan, B.; Zhai, C.; Wang, W.; Zeng, X.; Xu, X.; Hu, H.; Lin, F.; Wang, L.; Pan, Q. The Pik-p resistance to Magnaporthe oryzae in rice is mediated by a pair of closely linked CC-NBS-LRR genes. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2011, 122, 1017–1028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Khan, M.A.; Naeem, M.; Iqbal, M. Breeding approaches for bacterial leaf blight resistance in rice (Oryza sativa L.). Current status and future directions. Plant Pathol. 2014, 139, 27–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Kim, M.; Suh, J.; Qin, Y.; Noh, T.; Reinke, R.F.; Jena, K.K. Identification and fine-mapping of a new resistance gene, Xa40, conferring resistance to races in rice (Oryza sativa L.). Theor. Appl. Genet. 2015, 128, 1933–1943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Chukwu, S.C.; Rafii, M.Y.; Ramleeb, I.S.; Ismailc, S.I.; Oladosue, Y.; Okporied, E.; Onyishie, G.; Utobod, E.; Ekwud, L.; Swaraya, S.; et al. Marker-assisted selection and gene pyramiding for resistance to bacterial leaf blight disease of rice (Oryza sativa L.). Biotechnol. Equip. 2019, 33, 1314–3530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Noenplab, A.; Vanavichit, A.; Toojinda, T.; Sirithunya, P.; Tragoonrung, S.; Sriprakhon, S.; Vongsaprom, C. QTL mapping for leaf and neck blast resistance in Khao Dawk Mali105 and Jao Hom Nin recombinant inbred lines. Sci. Asia 2006, 33, 133–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Silprakhon, S. Identification and mapping genes controlling leaf blast resistance in double haploid lines IR64 × Azucena population. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Rice for Future, Bangkok, Thailand, 31 August–3 September 2004. [Google Scholar]
  20. Pattawatang, P. Mapping of Quantitative Trait Loci Controlling Bacterial Blight Resistance in Rice. Master’s Thesis, Kasetsart University, Bangkok, Thailand, 2005. Available online: https://kukr.lib.ku.ac.th/kukr_es/kukr/search_detail/dowload_digital_file/155271/28166 (accessed on 4 April 2022).
  21. Koide, Y.; Kobayashi, N.; Xu, D.; Fukuta, Y. Resistance gene and selection DNA marker for blast disease in rice (Oryza sativa L.). Jpn. Agric. Res. Q. 2009, 43, 255–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Mekonnen, T.; Haileselassie, T.; Tesfaye, K. Identification, Mapping and Pyramiding of Genes/Quantitative Trait Loci (QTLs) for Durable Resistance of Crops to Biotic Stresses. J. Plant Pathol. Microbiol. 2017, 8, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Ramalingam, J.; Raveendra, C.; Savitha, P.; Vidya, V.; Chaithra, T.L.; Velprabakaran, S.; Saraswathi, R.; Ramanathan, A.; Pillai, M.P.A.; Arumugachamy, S.; et al. Gene Pyramiding for Achieving Enhanced Resistance to Bacterial Blight, Blast, and Sheath Blight Diseases in Rice. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 11, 591457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Suwannual, T.; Chankaew, S.; Monkham, T.; Saksirirat, W.; Sanitchon, J. Pyramiding four blast resistance QTLs into Thai rice cultivar RD6 through marker-assisted selection. Plant Breed 2017, 53, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Wongsaprom, C.; Sirithunya, P.; Vanavichit, A.; Pantuwan, G.; Jongdee, B.; Sidhiwong, N.; Lanceras-Siangliw, J.; Toojinda, T. Two introgressed quantitative trait loci confer a broad-spectrum resistance to blast disease in the genetic background of the cultivar RD6, a Thai. glutinous jasmine rice. Field Crops Res. 2010, 119, 245–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Srichan, N.; Chankaew, S.; Monkham, T.; Thammbenjapone, P.; Sanichon, J. Development of Sakon Nakhon Rice Variety for Blast Resistance through Marker-Assisted Backcross Breeding. Agronomy 2019, 9, 67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Pinta, W.; Toojinda, T.; Thummabenjapone, P.; Sanitchon, J. Pyramiding of blast and bacterial leaf blight resistance genes into rice cultivar RD6 using marker-assisted selection. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2013, 28, 4433–4438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Doyle, J.J.; Doyle, J.L. A Rapid DNA Isolation Procedure for Small Quantities of Fresh Leaf Tissue. Phytochem. Bull. 1987, 19, 11–15. [Google Scholar]
  29. Sallaud, C.; Lorieux, M.; Roumen, E.; Tharreau, D.; Berruyer, R.; Svestasrani, P.; Garsmeur, O.; Ghesquiere, A.; Notteghem, J.L. Identification of five new blast resistance genes in the highly blast-resistant rice variety IR64 using a QTL mapping strategy. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2003, 106, 794–803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Veillet, S.; Filippi, C.M.; Gallais, A. Combined genetic analysis of partial blast resistance in an upland rice population and recurrent selection for line and hybrid values. Trends Plant Sci. 1996, 92, 644–653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Mackill, D.J.; Bonman, J.M. Inheritance of blast resistance in near-isogenic rice lines. Phytopathology 1992, 82, 746–749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. International Rice Research Institute. Standard Evaluation System for Rice (SES); International Rice Research Institute: Manila, Philippines, 2013; Available online: https://ricepedia.blogspot.com/2018/04/2013-irri-ses-standard-evaluation.html (accessed on 14 May 2025).
  33. Sirithanya, P. Mapping Gene Controlling Blast Resistance in Rice (Oryza sativa L.). Ph.D. Thesis, Kasetsart University, Bangkok, Thailand, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  34. Sribunrueang, A.; Chankaew, S.; Thummabenjapone, P.; Sanitchon, J. Stability of Four New Sources of Bacterial Leaf Blight Resistance in Thailand Obtained from Indigenous Rice Varieties. Agrivita J. Agric. Sci. 2017, 39, 128–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Kauffman, H.E.; Reddy, A.P.K. Seed transmission studies of Xanthomonas oryzae in rice. Phytopathology 1974, 65, 663–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. International Rice Research Institute. Standard Evaluation System for Rice (SES); International Rice Research Institute: Manila, Philippines, 2002; Available online: http://www.knowledgebank.irri.org/images/docs/rice-standard-evaluation-system.pdf (accessed on 9 September 2022).
  37. Weber, D.J.; Rochelle, R.; Singh, U.S. Chemistry and Biochemistry of Aroma in Scented Rice. In Aromatic Rices; Singh, R.K., Singh, U.S., Khush, G.S., Eds.; Oxford and IBH Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd.: New Delhi, India, 2000; pp. 135–151. Available online: https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/77895?Z3CBO6wi5apfvXx=Nu7xqnUtX (accessed on 9 September 2022).
  38. Sriseadka, I.; Mahatheeranont, S.; Kitsawatpaiboon, P. Rapid method for quantitative analysis of the aroma impact compound, 2-acetyl-1-pyrroline, in fragrant rice using automated headspace gas chromatography. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2006, 54, 8183–8189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Ahn, S.W. International collaboration on breeding for resistance to rice blast. In Rice Blast Disease; Zeigler, R.S., Leong, S.A., Teng, P.S., Eds.; Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International (CABI): Wallingford, UK, 1994; pp. 137–153. Available online: https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=1561907 (accessed on 1 September 2022).
  40. Gomez, K.A.; Gomez, A.A. Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research, 2nd ed.; John Wiley and Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1984; p. 680. Available online: https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Statistical+Procedures+for+Agricultural+Research%2C+2nd+Edition-p-9780471870920 (accessed on 1 September 2022).
  41. Cobb, J.N.; Juma, R.U.; Biswas, P.S.; Arbelaez, J.D.; Rutkoski, J.; Hagen, G.A.T.; Quinn, M.; Ng, E.H. Enhancing the rate of genetic gain in public-sector plant breeding programs: Lessons from the breeder’s equation. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2019, 132, 627–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Lamichhane, S.; Thapa, S. Advances from Conventional to Modern Plant Breeding Methodologies. Plant Breed. Biotechnol. 2022, 10, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Jonsson, A. Molecular cytogenetics of introgressive hybridization in plants. Methods Cell Sci. 2001, 23, 141–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Benchimol-Reis, L.L. Molecular Marker in Plant Breeding. J. Agric. Sci. 2023, 15, 58–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Shrestha1, S.; Subedi, S.; Shrestha, J. Marker-assisted selection: A smart biotechnological strategy for modern plant breeding Selección asistida por marcadores: Una estrategia biotecnológica inteligente para el fitomejoramiento moderno. Peruv. J. Agron. 2020, 4, 104–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Alahmad, S.; Dinglasan, E.; Leung, M.K.; Riaz, A.; Derbal, N.; Voss-Fels, P.K.; Able, A.J.; Bassi, M.F.; Christopher, J.; Lee, T. Hickey Speed breeding for multiple quantitative traits in durum wheat. Plant Methods 2018, 14, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Glaszmann, J.C. Isozymes and classification of Asian rice varieties. Theor. Appl. Genet. 1987, 42, 233–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Ogawa, T.; Yamamoto, T.; Taura, S.; Endo, N.; Kaku, H.; Ikeda, R.; Khush, G.S.; Mew, T.W. Research on resistance to bacterial blight in rice. In Blessings from Nature and Science for the Future; IRRI Limited Proceedings No. 10; International Rice Research Institute: Los Baños, Philippines, 2004; pp. 3–16. Available online: http://books.irri.org/LP10_content.pdf (accessed on 1 January 2024).
  49. Iyer-Pascuzzi, A.S.; Jiang, H.; Huang, L.; McCouch, S.R. Genetic and functional characterization of the rice bacterial blight disease resistance gene xa5. Phytopathology 2007, 98, 289–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Ancheta, J.; Toojind, T.; Reanwarakorn, K.; Patarapuwadol, S. Geographic distribution of Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae pathotype in central region of Thailand. Khon Kaen Agric. J. 2021, 50, 204–215. [Google Scholar]
  51. Mackill, D.J.; Bonman, J.M. New host of Pyricularia oryzae. Plant Dis. 1986, 70, 125–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Wen, N.; Chu, Z.; Wang, S. Three types of defense-responsive genes are involved in resistance to bacterial blight and fungal blast diseases in rice. Genom. Genet. 2003, 269, 331–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Kosack, K.E.; Jones, J.D.G. Plant disease resistance genes. Plant Mol. Biol. 1997, 48, 575–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Nica, C.A.; Dermitzakis, E.T. Expression quantitative trait loci: Present and future. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2013, 368, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Korinsak, S. Identification of Blast Resistance QTLs in Two Rice RIL Populations and Marker-Assisted Selection for Pyramiding of Four QTLs in RD 6 Rice Variety; Kasetsart University: Bangkok, Thailand, 2009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Schematic of gene introgression into Morkhor 60-3 using marker-assisted backcrossing and the pyramiding method.
Figure 1. Schematic of gene introgression into Morkhor 60-3 using marker-assisted backcrossing and the pyramiding method.
Agronomy 15 01600 g001
Figure 2. Source of P. oryzae and X. oryzae isolates used for artificial inoculation in greenhouses at Ubon Ratchathani Rice Research Center, Thailand, and Khon Kaen University, Thailand.
Figure 2. Source of P. oryzae and X. oryzae isolates used for artificial inoculation in greenhouses at Ubon Ratchathani Rice Research Center, Thailand, and Khon Kaen University, Thailand.
Agronomy 15 01600 g002
Figure 3. Severity of rice blast disease and lesion development after P. oryzae infection at the seedling stage.
Figure 3. Severity of rice blast disease and lesion development after P. oryzae infection at the seedling stage.
Agronomy 15 01600 g003
Figure 4. Typical symptoms of bacterial blight disease are observed at the seedling stage of rice.
Figure 4. Typical symptoms of bacterial blight disease are observed at the seedling stage of rice.
Agronomy 15 01600 g004
Figure 5. Seed quality, seed length, and seed shape of 10 seeds of the BC1F4 population compared with the standard, donor parent (DP), and recurrent parent (RP). (a) Sakon Nakhon, (b) Morkhor 60-1 (DP), (c) Morkhor 60-3 (RP), (d) BC1F4 22-7-60-2, (e) BC1F4 22-7-128-3, (f) BC1F4 22-7-140-4, (g) BC1F4 22-7-322-5, (h) BC1F4 22-11-187-6, (i) BC1F4 22-11-312-7, (j) BC1F4 22-11-131-8, (k) BC1F4 22-15-311-9, (l) BC1F4 22-15-258-10, and (m) BC1F4 22-15-298-11. The seed rice scale is in millimeters.
Figure 5. Seed quality, seed length, and seed shape of 10 seeds of the BC1F4 population compared with the standard, donor parent (DP), and recurrent parent (RP). (a) Sakon Nakhon, (b) Morkhor 60-1 (DP), (c) Morkhor 60-3 (RP), (d) BC1F4 22-7-60-2, (e) BC1F4 22-7-128-3, (f) BC1F4 22-7-140-4, (g) BC1F4 22-7-322-5, (h) BC1F4 22-11-187-6, (i) BC1F4 22-11-312-7, (j) BC1F4 22-11-131-8, (k) BC1F4 22-15-311-9, (l) BC1F4 22-15-258-10, and (m) BC1F4 22-15-298-11. The seed rice scale is in millimeters.
Agronomy 15 01600 g005
Table 1. Mean square of selected BC1F3 lines and check varieties against twelve isolates of P. oryzae and nine isolates of X. oryzae.
Table 1. Mean square of selected BC1F3 lines and check varieties against twelve isolates of P. oryzae and nine isolates of X. oryzae.
SOVBlastBB
dfMSdfMS
Isolate (I)112091.8 **845.92 **
Genotype (G)1716276.8 **16328 **
G × I187413.0 **1289.36 **
Error430260.93044.25
C.V. (%) 92.7629.68
SOV = source of variation; df = degrees of freedom; MS = mean square; C.V. = coefficient of variation percentage. ** Significant at p ≤ 0.01 by HSD.
Table 2. Lesion length and reaction to bacterial blight disease of 10 selected BC1F3 lines and seven check varieties to nine BB isolates under greenhouse conditions at Khon Kean University research station in 2022.
Table 2. Lesion length and reaction to bacterial blight disease of 10 selected BC1F3 lines and seven check varieties to nine BB isolates under greenhouse conditions at Khon Kean University research station in 2022.
Lines, VarietiesQTLs Located
on
Chromosome
Lesion Length (cm) and Reaction to Rice Bacterial Blight DiseaseBSR
SP
1-1
NB
7-7
NY
1-1
CN
2-1
CM
4-1
UT
2-1
NB
7-8
MS
1-2
PR
5-1
BC1F3 22-7-60qBl1,2,11,12 and xa54.2 d
(R)
9.0 b
(MR)
5.9 b–e
(MR)
6.5 de
(MR)
5.3 cd
(MR)
4.5 de
(R)
6.3 c–e
(MR)
9.0 bc
(MR)
5.3 d–f
(MR)
0.61
BC1F3 22-7-128qBl1,2,11,12 and xa54.6 d
(R)
5.3 c–f
(MR)
7.2 b–d
(MR)
7.9 cd
(MR)
6.7 b–d
(MR)
7.7 a–d
(MR)
6.8 c–e
(MR)
8.4 c
(MR)
3.5 e–f
(R)
0.61
BC1F3 22-7-140qBl1,2,11,12 and xa56.0 cd
(MR)
7.7 bc
(MR)
7.3 b–d
(MR)
3.5 e–g
(R)
4.5 c–f
(R)
6.4 b–d
(MR)
8.7 cd
(MR)
6.8 cd
(MR)
7.3 cd
(MR)
0.61
BC1F3 22-7-322qBl1,2,11,12 and xa55.5 cd
(MR)
6.7 b–e
(MR)
5.1 c–e
(MR)
3.7 e–g
(R)
6.5 b–d
(MR)
5.0 de
(R)
4.0 e
(R)
8.5 c
(MR)
9.5 c
(MR)
0.66
BC1F3 22-11-187qBl1,2,11,12 and xa56.0 cd
(MR)
8.2 bc
(MR)
6.8 b–d
(MR)
4.4 e–g
(R)
4.7 c–e
(R)
4.8 de
(R)
6.0 de
(MR)
6.1 cd
(MR)
7.6 cd
(MR)
0.66
BC1F3 22-11-312qBl1,2,11,12 and xa55.8 cd
(MR)
4.1 e–g
(R)
3.2 e–g
(R)
2.8 fg
(R)
4.2 d–f
(R)
4.7 de
(R)
7.4 c–e
(MR)
9.1 bc
(MR)
9.8 c
(MR)
0.77
BC1F3 22-11-131qBl1,2,11,12 and xa55.0 d
(R)
8.9 b
(MR)
1.7 fg
(R)
3.0 fg
(R)
4.3 d–f
(R)
5.8 d
(MR)
6.3 c–e
(MR)
6.1 cd
(MR)
5.5 d–f
(MR)
0.72
BC1F3 22-15-311qBl1,2,11,12 and xa57.8 bc
(MR)
4.3 d–g
(R)
5.3 b–e
(MR)
5.5 d–g
(MR)
7.3 bc
(MR)
6.1 cd
(MR)
7.8 c–e
(MR)
6.9 cd
(MR)
6.4 c–e
(MR)
0.55
BC1F3 22-15-258qBl1,2,11,12 and xa56.7 cd
(MR)
7.6 b–d
(MR)
7.9 bc
(MR)
4.3 e–g
(R)
6.3 cd
(MR)
7.3 a–d
(MR)
6.7 c–e
(MR)
8.6 c
(MR)
7.2 cd
(MR)
0.55
BC1F3 22-15-298qBl1,2,11,12 and xa54.9 d
(R)
4.4 d–g
(R)
4.4 d–f
(R)
6.2 d–f
(MR)
6.0 ce
(MR)
5.3 d
(MR)
5.0 de
(R)
8.5 c
(MR)
4.6 d–f
(R)
0.77
SKN
Standard check
-11.4 a
(MS)
8.9 b
(MR)
15.1 a
(S)
15.4 a
(S)
15.8 a
(S)
10.2 ab
(MS)
15.3 a
(S)
12.7 a
(MS)
17.7 a
(S)
0.05
Morkhor 60-3
recurrent parent
qBl11,125.5 cd
(MR)
5.0 c–f
(R)
8.3 b
(MR)
5.1 d–g
(MR)
9.4 b
(MR)
9.8 a–c
(MR)
10.6 bc
(MS)
12.3 ab
(MS)
14.4 ab
(MS)
0.38
Morkhor 60-1
donor parent
qBl1,2,11,12 and xa54.8 d
(R)
2.8 f–h
(R)
3.6 e–f
(R)
3.7 f–g
(R)
3.2 e–g
(R)
1.4 ef
(R)
5.5 de
(MR)
6.8 cd
(MR)
4.9 d–f
(R)
0.88
IRBB5
resistance check
xa50.1 e
(R)
0.7 h
(R)
0.9 g
(R)
2.5 g
(R)
1.6 fg
(R)
0.0 f
(R)
4.4 de
(R)
0.9 e
(R)
2.5 f
(R)
1.00
IR62266
resistance check
xa50.6 e
(R)
1.4 gh
(R)
0.5 g
(R)
5.7 d–g
(MR)
1.0 g
(R)
0.3 f
(R)
5.1 de
(MR)
4.7 d
(R)
3.0 ef
(R)
0.88
KDML105
susceptibility check
-11.6 a
(MS)
15.8 a
(S)
14.2 a
(MS)
14.3 ad
(MS)
14.6 a
(MS)
10.1 ab
(MS)
14.5 ab
(MS)
13.2 a
(MS)
13.7 b
(MS)
0.00
RD6
susceptibility check
-9.5 ab
(MR)
12.9 a
(MS)
16.1 a
(S)
10.9 bc
(MS)
12.4 a
(MS)
10.9 a
(MS)
13.5 ab
(MS)
13.4 a
(MS)
15.3 ab
(S)
0.05
Mean 5.87 6.686.676.196.825.897.868.358.12
F-test ******************
C.V. % 27.2629.928.4333.2625.7539.2833.7425.4827.25
Note: R = resistant (0–5 cm), MR = moderately resistant (5.1–10 cm), MS = moderately susceptible (10.1–15 cm), S = susceptible (>15 cm), and BSR: 0 = susceptible; 1 = resistance. ** Significant at p ≤ 0.01. The letter after each indicates the significance within each column by HSD. C.V. (%) = coefficient of variation percentage.
Table 3. Severity index (SI), resistance level, and broad-spectrum resistance (BSR) of 10 BC1F3 lines and 9 check varieties against 12 blast isolates under greenhouse conditions at Ubon Ratchathani Rice Research Center in 2023.
Table 3. Severity index (SI), resistance level, and broad-spectrum resistance (BSR) of 10 BC1F3 lines and 9 check varieties against 12 blast isolates under greenhouse conditions at Ubon Ratchathani Rice Research Center in 2023.
Lines, VarietiesQTLs Located
on
Chromosome
SI and Reaction to Rice Blast Disease
STN
22063
SRN
16371
SRN
16381
PSL
16358
PRE
16415
PSL
16362
STN
22069
PML
16295
UBN
21008
STN
22068
STN
22066
UBN
21028
BSR
BC1F3 22-7-60qBl1,2,11,12 and xa528.13 c–f
(MR)
0 d
(HR)
0.82 ef
(R)
15.67 c–g
(R)
9.72 bc
(R)
12.98 d–f
(R)
0.37 e
(R)
0 d
(HR)
1.39 c
(R)
0 c
(HR)
15.56 de
(R)
0 c
(HR)
0.95
BC1F3 22-7-128qBl1,2,11,12 and xa518.15 d–g
(R)
0 d
(HR)
0.93 ef
(R)
9.88 e–g
(R)
4.6 c
(R)
18.78 d–f
(R)
0 e
(HR)
0 d
(HR)
0 c
(HR)
0 c
(HR)
0.74 e
(R)
0 c
(HR)
1.00
BC1F3 22-7-140qBl1,2,11,12 and xa516.83 d–g
(R)
0 d
(HR)
0.74 ef
(R)
5.88 g
(R)
5.71 c
(R)
9.84 ef
(R)
0 e
(HR)
0 d
(HR)
0 c
(HR)
0 c
(HR)
0 e
(HR)
0 c
(HR)
1.00
BC1F3 22-7-322qBl1,2,11,12 and xa514.07 e–g
(R)
0 d
(HR)
1.48 ef
(R)
11.71 d–g
(R)
2.91 c
(R)
6.61 f
(R)
0 e
(HR)
0 d
(HR)
1.11 c
(R)
0 c
(HR)
0 e
(HR)
0 c
(HR)
1.00
BC1F3 22-11-187qBl1,2,11,12 and xa521.48 d–g
(MR)
0 d
(HR)
0 f
(HR)
20.95 c–f
(MR)
8.4 bc
(R)
26.77 c–f
(MR)
0.62 e
(R)
0 d
(HR)
2.47 c
(R)
0 c
(HR)
0 e
(HR)
0 c
(HR)
0.66
BC1F3 22-11-312qBl1,2,11,12 and xa510.26 fg
(R)
0 d
(HR)
0 f
(HR)
14.83 d–g
(R)
3.02 c
(R)
25.57 c–f
(MR)
0 e
(HR)
0 d
(HR)
0 c
(HR)
0 c
(HR)
0 e
(HR)
0 c
(HR)
0.95
BC1F3 22-11-131qBl1,2,11,12 and xa514.39 e–g
(R)
0 d
(HR)
0 f
(HR)
17.50 c–g
(R)
16.4 bc
(R)
32.04 b–e
(MR)
1.59 de
(R)
6.12 cd
(R)
0 c
(HR)
0 c
(HR)
36.51 c–e
(MR)
0 c
(HR)
0.87
BC1F3 22-15-311qBl1,2,11,12 and xa531.75 b–e
(MR)
0 d
(HR)
29.63 c–f
(MR)
15.82 c–g
(R)
11.64 bc
(R)
28.57 b–f
(MR)
6.42 de
(R)
0 d
(HR)
1.39 c
(R)
7.04 c
(R)
3.7 e
(R)
3.7 c
(R)
0.87
BC1F3 22-15-258qBl1,2,11,12 and xa519.05 d–g
(R)
1.11 d
(R)
0 f
(HR)
7.74 e–g
(R)
5.85 bc
(R)
18.1 d–f
(R)
0.62 e
(R)
0 d
(HR)
0 c
(HR)
0 c
(HR)
0 e
(HR)
0 c
(HR)
1.00
BC1F3 22-15-298qBl1,2,11,12 and xa521.88 d–g
(MR)
0 d
(HR)
0 f
(HR)
6.79 e–g
(R)
7.83 bc
(R)
18.99 d–f
(R)
2.47 de
(R)
0 d
(HR)
1.23 c
(R)
0 c
(HR)
0 e
(HR)
0 c
(HR)
0.95
SKN
standard check
-69.55 a
(S)
32.04 bc
(MR)
43.70 a–c
(MS)
41.9 ab
(MS)
73.54 a
(S)
69.14 a
(S)
74.07 b
(S)
64.76 ab
(S)
61.11 a
(S)
55.46 b
(MS)
94.81 ab
(HS)
69.63 a
(S)
0.04
Morkhor 60-3
recurrent parent
qBl11,1249.63 ab
(MS)
7 cd
(R)
33.46 b–f
(MR)
29.29 ab
(MR)
26.87 b
(MR)
44.76 a–c
(MS)
8.52 de
(R)
18.52 cd
(MR)
11.64 c
(R)
18.02 c
(R)
56.3 b–d
(MS)
4.44 c
(R)
0.62
Morkhor 60-1
donor parent
qBl1,2,11,12 and xa535.56 b–d
(MR)
5.49 d
(R)
67.20 ab
(S)
21.05 c–e
(MR)
19.58 bc
(R)
25.71 c–f
(MR)
3.17 de
(R)
3.7 cd
(R)
0 c
(HR)
6.94 c
(R)
59.26 a–c
(MS)
3.17 c
(R)
0.66
P0489
resistance check
qBl2,127.48 g
(R)
1.59 d
(R)
37.41 b–e
(MR)
6.55 fg
(R)
6.1 bc
(R)
12.98 d–f
(R)
5.35 de
(R)
0 d
(HR)
2.47 c
(R)
0 c
(HR)
0 e
(HR)
1.59 c
(R)
0.95
JHN
resistance check
qBl1,1117.69 d–g
(R)
9.26 cd
(R)
6.17 d–f
(R)
7.6 fg
(R)
12.43 bc
(R)
7.82 ef
(R)
15.43 d
(R)
7.14 cd
(R)
0 c
(HR)
0 c
(HR)
1.48 e
(R)
0 c
(HR)
1.00
IR64
resistance check
-14.74 e–g
(R)
0 d
(HR)
0 f
(HR)
6.39 g
(R)
7.41 bc
(R)
8.57 ef
(R)
3.7 de
(R)
2.31 d
(R)
7 c
(R)
0 c
(HR)
2.65 e
(R)
10.05 bc
(R)
1.00
Azucena
resistance check
-42.06 bc
(MR)
48.15 ab
(MS)
44.9 a–c
(MS)
7.16 e–g
(R)
9.79 bc
(R)
11.9 d–f
(R)
0 e
(HR)
38.1 bc
(MR)
2.78 c
(R)
51.85 b
(MS)
68.15 a–c
(S)
55.56 a
(MS)
0.25
KDML 105
susceptibility check
-49.63 ab
(MS)
66.67 a
(S)
77.78 a
(S)
48.57 a
(MS)
56.61 a
(MS)
53.02 ab
(MS)
91.11 a
(HS)
80.95 a
(HS)
62.96 a
(S)
100 a
(HS)
100 a
(HS)
69.73 a
(S)
0.00
RD 6
susceptibility check
-28.26 c–f
(R)
40.7 b
(MS)
40.41 b–d
(MS)
25.71 cd
(MR)
9.95 bc
(R)
35.24 b–d
(MR)
35.19 c
(MR)
2.78 cd
(R)
38.89 b
(MR)
49.21 b
(MS)
62.96 a–c
(S)
39.81 ab
(MR)
0.45
Mean 26.8711.1520.2416.8915.7024.6013.0811.8110.2315.1826.4213.55
F-test ************************
C.V. % 45.22137.34111.2251.5480.8461.3067.20181.1392.33107.0298.60139.69
Note: HR = highly resistant = 0, resistant (0 < SI ≤ 20), moderately resistant (20 < SI ≤ 40), moderately susceptible (40 < SI ≤ 60), susceptible (60 < SI ≤ 80), and highly susceptible (80 < SI ≤ 100); BSR = broad-spectrum resistance. ** Significant at p ≤ 0.01. The letter after each indicates the significance within each column by HSD. C.V. (%) = coefficient of variation percentage.
Table 4. Agronomic traits of 10 BC1F4 lines and three check varieties were evaluated under field conditions at Khon Kean University research station in 2022–2023.
Table 4. Agronomic traits of 10 BC1F4 lines and three check varieties were evaluated under field conditions at Khon Kean University research station in 2022–2023.
Lines, VarietiesQTLs Located
on Chromosome
DF
(day)
PH
(cm)
NPPPL
(cm)
NGPTGW
(g.)
HIGY
(g/plant)
BC1F4 22-7-60-2qBl1,2,11,12 and xa574 g136 ab7.2535.7 a14128.96 c–e0.4266.88
BC1F4 22-7-128-3qBl1,2,11,12 and xa581 c–e146 a6.7524.5 c17228.77 c–e0.2760.58
BC1F422-7-140-4qBl1,2,11,12 and xa583 b–d142 a7.2537.5 a15928.18 d0.2874.49
BC1F4 22-7-322-5qBl1,2,11,12 and xa589 a146 a7.7535.0 ab16032.61 ab0.2473.83
BC1F4 22-11-187-6qBl1,2,11,12 and xa580 c–f143 a6.7535.2 a15830.46 b–d0.2756.83
BC1F422-11-312-7qBl1,2,11,12 and xa578 d–g145 a7.5033.7 ab16831.21 a–c0.4181.57
BC1F4 22-11-131-8qBl1,2,11,12 and xa578 d–g129 bc7.2536.5 a12428.07 de0.3678.30
BC1F4 22-15-311-9qBl1,2,11,12 and xa588 ab147 a6.5022.7 c14728.60 de0.2673.12
BC1F4 22-15-258-10qBl1,2,11,12 and xa575 fg138 ab8.0024.7 c15030.11 cd0.3071.47
BC1F4 22-15-298-11qBl1,2,11,12 and xa577 e–g138 ab7.0025.5 c15329.33 c–e0.3066.63
SKN
standard check
-87 a–c146 a7.7528.0 bc12933.53 a0.3499.91
Morkhor 60-3
recurrent parent
qBl11,1284 b–d141 ab6.0024.2 c14427.16 e0.3876.90
Morkhor 60-1
donor parent
qBl1,2,11,12 and xa573 g122 b7.2521.7 c13629.06 c–e0.4067.03
Mean 80.82141.157.1529.59149.380.3229.6970.37
F-test ****ns**ns**nsns
C.V. % 4.806.0015.0417.0318.7127.645.8328.32
Note: DF = Days to flowering (day); PH = Plant height (cm); NPP = Number of panicles per plant; PL = Panicle length (cm); NGP = Number of total grains/panicle; HI = Harvest index; TGW = 1000-grain weight (g) GY = Grain yield g/plant. ** Significant at p ≤ 0.01. ns = non-significant difference. The letter after each mean indicates the significance within each column by Tukey’s HSD. C.V. (%) = coefficient of variation percentage.
Table 5. Aroma and seed shape of 10 BC1F4 lines and three check varieties.
Table 5. Aroma and seed shape of 10 BC1F4 lines and three check varieties.
Lines, VarietiesQTLs Located
on Chromosome
2AP (ppm)Seed Shape
Paddy Size (mm)Brown Rice Size (mm)
LengthBreadthL/B ratioLengthBreadthL/B ratio
BC1F4 22-7-60-2qBl1,2,11,12 and xa58.829.72 de 2.58 ab3.77 d7.21 b–d2.143.37
BC1F4 22-7-128-3qBl1,2,11,12 and xa510.289.79 c–e2.27 cd4.31 a–d6.95 de2.023.44
BC1F4 22-7-140-4qBl1,2,11,12 and xa59.389.72 de2.36 bc4.12 a–d7.13 b–e2.193.26
BC1F4 22-7-322-5qBl1,2,11,12 and xa510.4710.01 b–e2.60 ab3.86 de7.34 a–d2.263.25
BC1F4 22-11-187-6qBl1,2,11,12 and xa510.7010.13 b–d2.36 bc4.29 a–d7.51 ab2.073.63
BC1F4 22-11-312-7qBl1,2,11,12 and xa510.1110.72 a2.29 cd4.68 a7.56 ab1.993.80
BC1F4 22-11-131-8qBl1,2,11,12 and xa58.739.81 c–e2.67 a3.67 e7.14 b–e2.113.38
BC1F4 22-15-311-9qBl1,2,11,12 and xa510.799.76 c–e2.52 a–c3.87 de7.46 ab2.173.44
BC1F4 22-15-258-10qBl1,2,11,12 and xa57.3110.27 a–c2.35 bc4.37 ab7.44 ab2.053.63
BC1F4 22-15-298-11qBl1,2,11,12 and xa512.7010.40 ab2.28 cd4.56 ab7.42 ab2.023.67
SKN
standard check
-13.2610.71 a2.02 d4.47 a–d6.75 e1.694.53
Mor khor 60-3
recurrent parent
qBl1,118.429.51 e2.40 bc3.96 c–e6.98 c–e2.133.28
Mor khor 60-1
donor parent
qBl1,2,11,12 and xa57.339.66 de2.36 bc4.11 a6.75 d2.073.26
Mean 10.012.394.157.272.103.46
F-test ********nsns
C.V. % 3.637.398.104.156.398.54
Note: 2AP = 2-acetyl-1-pyrroline; L/B ratio: Length/breadth ratio. ** Significant at p ≤ 0.01. ns = non-significant difference. The letter after each indicates the significance within each column by HSD. C.V. (%) = coefficient of variation percentage.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Panmaha, S.; Netpakdee, C.; Wongsa, T.; Chankaew, S.; Monkham, T.; Sanitchon, J. Improvement of Morkhor 60-3 Upland Rice Variety for Blast and Bacterial Blight Resistance Using Marker–Assisted Backcross Selection. Agronomy 2025, 15, 1600. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15071600

AMA Style

Panmaha S, Netpakdee C, Wongsa T, Chankaew S, Monkham T, Sanitchon J. Improvement of Morkhor 60-3 Upland Rice Variety for Blast and Bacterial Blight Resistance Using Marker–Assisted Backcross Selection. Agronomy. 2025; 15(7):1600. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15071600

Chicago/Turabian Style

Panmaha, Sawinee, Chaiwat Netpakdee, Tanawat Wongsa, Sompong Chankaew, Tidarat Monkham, and Jirawat Sanitchon. 2025. "Improvement of Morkhor 60-3 Upland Rice Variety for Blast and Bacterial Blight Resistance Using Marker–Assisted Backcross Selection" Agronomy 15, no. 7: 1600. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15071600

APA Style

Panmaha, S., Netpakdee, C., Wongsa, T., Chankaew, S., Monkham, T., & Sanitchon, J. (2025). Improvement of Morkhor 60-3 Upland Rice Variety for Blast and Bacterial Blight Resistance Using Marker–Assisted Backcross Selection. Agronomy, 15(7), 1600. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15071600

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop