A Single Dominant Gene for Resistance to the Soybean Aphid in the Soybean Cultivar Dowling
The soybean aphid (Aphis glycines Matsumura), a new pest of soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.], rapidly spread throughout North America after its arrival in 2000 and caused millions of dollars in economic losses. At present, the application of insecticides is the only means to control the soybean aphid. However, genetic resistance to the aphid was recently discovered in soybean germplasm and the soybean cultivar Dowling was identified as having strong antibiosis‐type aphid resistance. The objective of this study was to determine the inheritance of resistance to the soybean aphid in Dowling. Resistance in F1, F2, and F2–derived F3 (F2:3) families from crosses between Dowling and the two susceptible soybean cultivars Loda and Williams 82 was analyzed. All F1 plants were resistant to the aphid. Heterogeneity of segregation of F2 plants in 14 Dowling × Loda F2 families was nonsignificant (P = 0.16), and pooled F2 data, with 132 resistant to 45 susceptible plants, fit a 3:1 ratio (P = 0.90). F2 plants from Dowling × Williams 82 segregated 135 resistant to 44 susceptible, also fitting a 3:1 ratio (P = 0.89). Segregation among the F2:3 families fit a 1:2:1 monogenic inheritance pattern. These results indicated that a single dominant gene named Rag1 controlled resistance in Dowling. The monogenic dominant nature of resistance will enable breeders to rapidly convert existing susceptible cultivars to resistant cultivars using backcrossing procedures. 
Glyphosate‐Resistant Soybean Cultivar Yields Compared with Sister Lines
Herbicide‐resistant crops like glyphosate resistant (GR) soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] are gaining acceptance in U.S. cropping systems. Comparisons from cultivar performance trials suggest a yield suppression may exist with GR soybean. Yield suppressions may result from either cultivar genetic differentials, the GR gene/gene insertion process, or glyphosate. Grain yield of GR is probably not affected by glyphosate. Yield suppression due to the GR gene or its insertion process (GR effect) has not been reported. We conducted a field experiment at four Nebraska locations in 2 yr to evaluate the GR effect on soybean yield. Five backcross‐derived pairs of GR and non‐GR soybean sister lines were compared along with three high‐yield, nonherbicide‐resistant cultivars and five other herbicide‐resistant cultivars. Glyphosate resistant sister lines yielded 5% (200 kg ha−1) less than the non‐GR sisters (GR effect). Seed weight of the non‐GR sisters was greater than that of the GR sisters (in 1999) and the non‐GR sister lines were 20 mm shorter than the GR sisters. Other variables monitored were similar between the two cultivar groups. The high‐yield, nonherbicide‐resistant cultivars included for comparison yielded 5% more than the non‐GR sisters and 10% more than the GR sisters. 
Backcrossing High Seed Protein to a Soybean Cultivar
An inverse relationship between seed yield and seed protein concentration has limited success in developing soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] cultivars with high seed protein. High protein from the donor parent ‘Pando’ (498 g kg−1 protein) was backcrossed to ‘Cutler 71’ (408 g kg−1 protein) to determine if the yield of Cutler 71 could be recovered in addition to the high protein from Pando. Random F4‐derived lines, plus three lines with highest seed protein concentration, from the initial cross, the BC1, and the BC2 populations, were evaluated for agronomic traits in separate, two‐replicate tests for 1 yr at West Lafayette, IN. Seed from replication composites were evaluated for protein and oil concentration using near infra‐red reflectance or near infra‐red transmission. The parent line for each backcross was selected first for high seed protein, then for yield and agronomic similarity to Cutler 71. Random F4‐derived progenies of the BC3 population, the parent line for each backcross, and the cultivars Pando, Cutler 71, and Hamilton were evaluated in three‐replicate tests for 2 yr at West Lafayette, IN. In each backcross generation, lines were identified with seed protein in excess of 470 g kg−1 and that progressively approached the yield of Cutler 71. In the BC3 population, one line averaged 472 g kg−1 seed protein and was significantly (P = 0.05) higher in seed yield than Cutler 71, similar in yield to the cultivar Hamilton. In each backcross population, there were inverse relationships between seed yield and seed protein (R2 values ranging from 0.33 to 0.06) and between seed protein and seed oil (R2 values ranging from 0.55 in BC1 to 0.94 in BC3). In successive backcross populations, minimum oil values increased from 148 in BC1 to 174 g kg−1 in BC3, indicating a trend toward recovering oil concentration (204 g kg−1) of Cutler 71. The data demonstrate that high seed protein can be backcrossed to a soybean cultivar, fully recovering the seed yield of the cultivar, suggesting the absence of physiological barriers to combining high seed protein with high seed yield in these populations. 
Inheritance of Resistance of Soybean for Meloidogyne incognita and Identification of Molecular Marker for Marker Assisted Selection
Aims: To study the inheritance of resistance to Meloidogyne incognita in soybean cultivar CD 201, and identify molecular markers linked to resistance genes/QTLs in soybean.
Study Design: The phenotypic assay was a complete randomized design, and mendelian hypothesis was applied.
Place and Duration of Study: Biotechnology lab, Coodetec, BR 467, km98. Cascavel, PR, Brazil, between July 2012 to July 2013.
Methodology: The population was created by the crossing the cultivars CD 201 (resistant) and BRS 133 (susceptible). F2:3 families were phenotyped for resistance to M. incognita and microsatellite molecular markers were used to identify genes/QTLs associated with resistance. Inheritance hypothesis was tested by Chi square test.
Results: The resistance to M. incognita in soybean cultivar CD 201 is given by three epistatic additive genes, two dominant and one recessive. Among the markers, Satt358 is linked to a dominant gene/QTL of resistance explaining 9.9% of the variability in resistance in the evaluated population. The use of this marker allows increasing the frequency resistant or moderately resistant lines in soybean breeding programs. Sixty nine percent of F2:3 families that have at least one allele for resistance in marker Satt358 have resistant or moderately resistant phenotype, and no F2:3 families that is homozygous with the susceptible allele in this locus have resistant phenotype.
Conclusion: This finding can help soybean breeders to develop highly resistant cultivar to M. incognita, both, by phenotypic selection and marker assisted selection. 
Effect of Cultivars and Processing Stages on Soybean Seed Quality
Aims: The objective of this research was to assess the effect of cultivars and processing stages on soybean seed quality as well as determining the step that exacerbates mechanical damage to seeds.
Study Design: Losing soybean seed quality under effect of processing stages accomplished through an experiment in factorial arrangement (6×3) with 18 treatments based on completely randomized design with three replications.
Place and Duration of Study: This study carried out in Agriculture and Natural Resources Research Institute of Sari- Iran (2011-12).
Methodology: The experiment proceeded with two separate factors, the first factor consisted of six different seed Processing stages: before cleaning, after elevator, after pre-cleaning, after cleaning, after drying and after packaging, and the second factor involved three cultivars of soybean, Telar, Sari and Line 033.
Result: Cultivar effect on germination percentage, cracked seed coat percentage, mean germination time, germination after accelerated aging test, electrical conductivity test and seedling vigor index was significant. However these parameters were significantly affected by different processing stages.
Conclusion: The lowest value of germination percentage, the highest value of broken seed percentage and the greatest value of cracked seed coat percentage caused after elevator stage while the rest of processing stages led to maximum quality of seed. 
 Hill, C.B., Li, Y. and Hartman, G.L., 2006. A single dominant gene for resistance to the soybean aphid in the soybean cultivar Dowling. Crop science, 46(4), pp.1601-1605.
 Elmore, R.W., Roeth, F.W., Nelson, L.A., Shapiro, C.A., Klein, R.N., Knezevic, S.Z. and Martin, A., 2001. Glyphosate‐resistant soybean cultivar yields compared with sister lines. Agronomy Journal, 93(2), pp.408-412.
 Wilcox, J.R. and Cavins, J.F., 1995. Backcrossing high seed protein to a soybean cultivar. Crop Science, 35(4), pp.1036-1041.
 Oliveira, L., Vinholes, P., Montecelli, T., Lazzari, F. and Schuster, I. (2015) “Inheritance of Resistance of Soybean for Meloidogyne incognita and Identification of Molecular Marker for Marker Assisted Selection”, Journal of Scientific Research and Reports, 8(3), pp. 1-8. doi: 10.9734/JSRR/2015/18648.
 Mirshekarnezhad, B., Sadeghi, H., Paknezhad, F., Sheidaie, S. and Gholami, H. (2014) “Effect of Cultivars and Processing Stages on Soybean Seed Quality”, Annual Research & Review in Biology, 4(18), pp. 2795-2803. doi: 10.9734/ARRB/2014/9471.