Skip to main content

Table 2 Comparison of results obtained from LAMP reactions and genotyping for identifying A) ALS and B) ACCase allelic variants in resistant Lolium spp. plants

From: Can allele-specific loop-mediated isothermal amplification be used for rapid detection of target-site herbicide resistance in Lolium spp.?

Locus

Target mutation

Method

A) Population and plant numbers

651

670

678

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

ALS

197

LAMP

nd

nd

wt

nd

wt

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

wt

nd

mut

mut

Genotyping

–

C(C/A)G

CAG

–

CAG

–

–

–

–

–

–

C(C/A)G

–

–

CAG

376

LAMP

wt

/

/

wt

wt

wt

wt

wt

nd

nd

wt

wt

wt

mut

nd

Genotyping

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

574

LAMP

nd

nd

nd

wt

wt

nd

nd

nd

wt

wt

wt

wt

wt

wt

wt

Genotyping

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Locus

Target mutation

Method

B) Population and plant numbers

651

576

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1

2

3

4

5

ACCase

1781

LAMP

nd

mut

wt

/

mut

mut

mut

wt

mut

wt

/

mut

nd

wt

mut

Genotyping

(A/T)TA

(A/T)TA

–

/

TTA

(A/T)TA

(A/T)TA

–

(A/T)TA

–

TTA

(A/T)TA

(A/C)TA

-

(A/T)TA

2041

LAMP

wt

nd

mut

/

wt

nd

wt

wt

wt

mut

wt

wt

nd

wt

wt

Genotyping

–

A(T/A)T

A(T/A)T

/

–

A(T/G)T

–

A(T/A)T

–

AAT

–

–

A(T/A)T

–

–

2078

LAMP

nd

wt

nd

/

nd

wt

wt

mut

wt

wt

wt

/

nd

wt

mut

Genotyping

–

–

G(A/G)T

/

–

–

–

G(A/G)T

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

   

594

602

648

   

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

2

3

4

5

6

ACCase

1781

LAMP

mut

mut

wt

wt

mut

wt

wt

wt

mut

/

/

/

wt

nd

wt

Genotyping

TTA

TTA

TTA

(A/T)TA

(A/T)TA

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

2041

LAMP

wt

nd

nd

wt

wt

wt

wt

wt

nd

wt

nd

mut

wt

wt

wt

Genotyping

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

2078

LAMP

wt

wt

wt

wt

wt

wt

wt

wt

wt

mut

wt

wt

nd

nd

mut

Genotyping

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

G(A/G)T

  1. LAMP results are distinguished in: wt  wild type allele and mut  mutated allele; nd  impossible to distinguish the WT from MUT allele (i.e. results were not clear or ambiguous); slashes (/)  no amplification curves were obtained with both sets of primers
  2. Genotyping results reported a dash (−) when the genotype had the WT sequence into the specific codon and the mutated triplet was indicated when a substitution into the WT triplet was detected in the sequence; slashes (/) indicates that sequence was not readable. To facilitate the reading, in italics when the results were consistent between genotyping and LAMP assays, in bold when the two investigation methods gave contrasting results