Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Plant Science Today (PST)

Research Articles

Vol. 12 No. sp3 (2025): Advances in Plant Health Improvement for Sustainable Agriculture

Evolving phyllody resistant mutant(s) in sesame (Sesamum indicum L.) through marker validation and phytochemical quantification

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.8215
Submitted
13 March 2025
Published
26-08-2025

Abstract

Sesame (Sesamum indicum L.) is one of the most important oilseed crops in India. Among the various factors affecting the productivity of sesame, phyllody caused by phytoplasma and transmitted by Orosius albisinctus is a major disease which will reduce the yield up to 80 %. As sesame phyllody is a vector bone disease it is very difficult to control this disease and evolving resistant/tolerant variety may be one of the low-cost solutions. With the objective of evolving a high yielding phyllody resistant sesame variety through mutation, this research was executed. About 100 handpicked good quality seeds of sesame varieties viz. TMV 7, CO 1 and VRI 3 were subjected to irradiation at Atomic Power Station, Kalpakkam (IGCAR) on 18th September 2020. Three doses of gamma irradiation viz., 30 kR, 40 kR and 50 kR were fixed for our mutation studies. The M1 generation was raised at Agricultural Research Station, Vaigai Dam on 21.09.2020 by following Randomized Block Design (RBD) with three replications. At the time of flowering, selfing was carried out to ensure self-pollination in the mutants and the selfed seeds of the M1 generation were used to raise the M2 generation. In the M2 generation 132 phyllody-free sesame plants were identified at the time of maturity and forwarded as families to M3 generation. In the M3 generation a total number of eighteen families were identified as phyllody free families and forwarded to M4 generation. Among the eighteen families of the M4 generation, one family i.e. PR 375 is recorded as the phyllody tolerant species with the score of 16.06a. While screening for phyllody resistance none of the plant protective measures were carried out. From these families, seven phyllody resistant mutants (PR 375-1, PR 375-2, PR 375-3, PR 375-4, PR 375-5, PR 375-6 and PR 375-7 were identified. The resistance for phyllody in the PR 375 family was confirmed by the nested polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay by using the universal primer pairs P1/P7 and R16F2n / R16 R2 as marker and quantification of secondary metabolites viz. phenols, tannin, alkaloids and flavonoids. The progeny of PR 375 will be forwarded to subsequent generations for further evaluation.

References

  1. 1. Myint D, Gilani SA, Kawase M, Watanabe KN. Sustainable sesame (Sesamum indicum L.) production through improved technology: An overview of production, challenges and opportunities in Myanmar. Sustainability. 2020;12(9):3515. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12093515
  2. 2. Jayaramachandran M, Ravichandran V, Vaithiyalingan R. Assessment of genetic variability and resistance against stem and root rot caused by Macrophomina phaseolina in segregating generations of sesame (Sesamum indicum L.). Journal of Oilseeds Research. 2021;38(1):115-20. https://doi.org/10.56739/jor.v38i1.1370243.
  3. 3. Salehi M, Izadpanah K. Etiology and transmission of sesame phyllody in Iran. Journal of Phytopathology. 1992;135(1):37-47. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0434.1992.tb01248.x4.
  4. 4. Parani M, Singh KN, Rangasamy SS, Ramalingam RS. A study on mechanism of phyllody disease resistance in Sesamum alatum Thonn. Current Science. 1996 Jan 10:86-9.
  5. 5. Konzak CF, Nilan RA, Wagner J, Foster RJ. Efficient chemical mutagenesis. Radiat Bot 5 Suppl. 1965:49-70.
  6. 6. Ustun R, Yol E, Ikten C, Catal M, Uzun B. Screening, selection and real-time qPCR validation for phytoplasma resistance in sesame (Sesamum indicum L.). Euphytica. 2017;213:1-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-017-1936-y7.
  7. 7. Akhtar KP, Sarwar G, Sarwar N, Elahi MT. Field evaluation of sesame germplasm against sesame phyllody disease. Pakistan Journal of Botany. 2013;45(3):1085-90.
  8. 8. Ikten C. Catal M. Yol E, Utsun R, Uzun B. Molecular identification, characterisation and transmission of phytoplasmas associated with sesame phyllody in Turkey. European Journal of Plant Pathology. 2014;139:217-29.
  9. 9. Doyle JJ. Isolation of plant DNA from fresh tissue. Focus.1990;12:13-5. https://doi.org/10.2307/2419362
  10. 10. Singleton VL, Rossi JA. Colorimetry of total phenolics with phosphomolybdic-phosphotungstic acid reagents. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture. 1965;16(3):144-58. https://doi.org/10.5344/ajev.1965.16.3.14411.
  11. 11. Saxena M, Saxena J, Nema R, Singh D, Gupta A. Phytochemistry of medicinal plants. Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry. 2013;1(6).
  12. 12. Nagpurkar M, Patil NM. Qualitative and quantitative phytochemical studies in different Parts of Sesamum indicum L. Medicinal Plants: Biodiversity, Sustainable Utilization and Conservation. 2020:583-95. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-1636-8_3513
  13. 13. Zhishen J, Mengcheng T, Jianming W. The determination of flavonoid contents in mulberry and their scavenging effects on superoxide radicals. Food Chemistry. 1999;64(4):555-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0308-8146(98)00102-2
  14. 14. Jayaramachandran M, Saravanan S, Motilal A, Prabhu PC, Hepziba SJ, Swain H, et al. Genetic improvement of a neglected and underutilised oilseed crop: Sesame (Sesamum indicum L.) through mutation breeding. The Nucleus. 2020;63:293-302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13237-020-00329-w15
  15. 15. Thilagavathi C, Mullainathan L. Isolation of macro mutants and mutagenic effectiveness, efficiency in black gram [Vigna mungo (L) Hepper]. Global Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2009;4(2):76-9.
  16. 16. Singh PK, Akram M, Vajpeyi M, Srivastava RL, Kumar K, Naresh R. Screening and development of resistant sesame varieties against phytoplasma. Bulletin of Insectology. 2007;60(2):303.
  17. 17. Asudi GO, Van den Berg J, Midega CA, Schneider B, Seemüller E, Pickett JA, et al. Detection, identification and significance of phytoplasmas in wild grasses in East Africa. Plant Disease. 2016;100(1):108-15. https://doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-11-14-1173-RE
  18. 18. Lee IM, Davis RE, Gundersen-Rindal DE. Phytoplasma: phytopathogenic mollicutes. Annual Reviews in Microbiology. 2000;54(1):221-55. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.micro.54.1.221
  19. 19. Junqueira A, Bedendo I, Pascholati S. Biochemical changes in corn plants infected by the maize bushy stunt phytoplasma. Physiological and Molecular Plant Pathology. 2004;65(4):181-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmpp.2005.01.005
  20. 20. Negro C, Sabella E, Nicolì F, Pierro R, Materazzi A, Panattoni A, et al. Biochemical changes in leaves of Vitis vinifera cv. Sangiovese infected by bois noir phytoplasma. Pathogens. 2020;9(4):269. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens9040269
  21. 21. Tan Y, Li Q, Zhao Y, Wei H, Wang J, Baker CJ, et al. Integration of metabolomics and existing omics data reveals new insights into phytoplasma-induced metabolic reprogramming in host plants. PLoS One. 2021;16(2):e0246203. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0246203

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.