# When Metabolomics Meets Quantitative Genetics: An Integrative Strategy to Elucidate Plant Resistance Mechanisms

Romane Lapous, Komla Exonam Amegan, Bernard Caromel, Charles-eric Durel, Anne-violette Lavoir, Julie Ferreira de Carvalho, Romain Larbat

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## ► To cite this version:

Romane Lapous, Komla Exonam Amegan, Bernard Caromel, Charles-eric Durel, Anne-violette Lavoir, et al.. When Metabolomics Meets Quantitative Genetics: An Integrative Strategy to Elucidate Plant Resistance Mechanisms. Plant, Cell and Environment, 2025, pp.1-16. 10.1111/pce.70328. hal-05443704

HAL Id: hal-05443704

https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-05443704v1

Submitted on 6 Jan 2026

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

# When Metabolomics Meets Quantitative Genetics: An Integrative Strategy to Elucidate Plant Resistance Mechanisms

Romane Lapous¹ ID | Komla Exonam Amegan²,³,⁴ ID | Bernard Caromel³ | Charles-Eric Durel¹ | Anne-Violette Lavoir⁴ |
Julie Ferreira de Carvalho¹ | Romain Larbat¹,² ID

¹Univ Angers, Institut Agro, INRAE, IRHS, SFR QUASAV, Angers, France | ²Université de Lorraine, LAE, INRAE, Nancy, France | ³INRAE, GAFL, Montfavet, France | ⁴Université Côte D'Azur, INRAE, UMR ISA, Nice, France

**Correspondence:** Romain Larbat (romain.larbat@inrae.fr); Julie Ferreira de Carvalho (julie.ferreira-de-carvalho@inrae.fr)

**Received:** 7 June 2025 | **Revised:** 19 November 2025 | **Accepted:** 2 December 2025

**Funding:** Conseil Régional des Pays de la Loire; Institut National de Recherche pour l'Agriculture, l'Alimentation et l'Environnement; Agence Nationale de la Recherche

**Keywords:** biotic interactions | genetic control | QTL co-localisation | resistance durability | specialised metabolism

## ABSTRACT

Gene pyramiding in crop varieties offers a promising strategy to achieve sustainable production and reduce reliance on pesticides. However, stacking resistance genes without understanding their biological functions may result in transient protection. Although numerous studies have mapped loci associated with resistance to biotic stresses, the underlying molecular mechanisms remain poorly characterised. Resistance genes are often involved in pest/pathogen recognition, whereas quantitative trait loci (QTLs) may act in other steps of plant immunity such as signalling and defence pathways. In parallel, specialised metabolites have attracted growing attention as key defence components, acting as antimicrobial or repellent agents. While both fields encounter challenges to precisely decipher plant defence mechanisms, making use of metabolomics on segregating populations could bypass some of these limitations. In this review, we introduce an approach based on the identification of metabolic QTLs within populations where resistance QTLs segregate, enabling the detection of genomic co-localisations between both types of QTLs. This integrative framework can reveal specific metabolic signatures associated with resistance, thus refining hypotheses on the mode of action of resistance QTLs. Ultimately, elucidating the genetic architecture of specialised metabolism in relation to quantitative resistance will inform on more effective combinations of defence mechanisms for breeding resistant varieties.

## 1 | Introduction

Crops face numerous biotic threats from pests and pathogens, which can lead to yield loss of up to 40% (Savary et al. 2019). To mitigate these challenges, chemical pesticides are widely used despite their negative consequences on the environment and human health. To reduce their impact, complementary agro-nomic tools are currently studied and implemented as part of

Integrated Pest Management strategies in agroecosystems (see Zhou et al. 2024). Among these levers, genetic resistance through introgression of favourable alleles remains a predominant and efficient way to propose genotypes adapted to their biotic environment.

Resistant cultivars have been widely deployed across various crops, helping to reduce yield loss and moderate dependence on

Romane Lapous, Komla Exonam Amegan, Julie Ferreira de Carvalho and Romain Larbat contribute equally to this work.

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

© 2025 The Author(s). *Plant, Cell & Environment* published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
chemical control. Notable examples include the *Xa* genes in rice, which have provided effective resistance against bacterial blight worldwide (Chen et al. 2021), and the *Dn4* gene in wheat, which confers protection against the Russian wheat aphid (*Diuraphis noxia*) (Smith et al. 2004). However, despite these remarkable examples, maintaining genetic resistance over time remains a significant challenge. Genetic resistance can erode rapidly due to pathogen adaptation, raising concerns about their durability (Brown 2015). Importantly, this breakdown frequently results from an incomplete understanding of the molecular mechanisms underlying resistance, particularly for quantitative resistance controlled by multiple genes.

Pyramiding resistance genes, by combining several sources of resistance, has long been proposed as a strategy to enhance the durability of genetic control (Parlevliet 2002). Yet, its benefits may be short-lived, leading to increasing interest in diversifying resistance mechanisms within elite crops as a more sustainable approach (Li et al. 2001; Fry 2008; Delourme et al. 2014; Lasserre-Zuber et al. 2018). Achieving this, however, remains challenging, as it requires the identification and strategic combination of complementary loci whose biological functions are often poorly understood, resulting in only transient resistance gains. Integrating mechanisms acting at different stages of pathogen recognition and plant defence is expected to increase the evolutionary cost for pests and pathogens, thereby reducing the risk of resistance breakdown (Pilet-Nayel et al. 2017; Zhang et al. 2021).

While large effect resistance genes (or R genes) have been extensively cloned and functionally characterised, the molecular mechanisms underlying quantitative resistance remain poorly understood. Evidence shows the involvement of R genes in pest/pathogen recognition, while quantitative trait loci (QTLs) may act in other steps of plant immunity such as signalling and defence pathways. Importantly, specialised metabolites have emerged as key end-players of plant defence, with many of them, exhibiting antimicrobial or insecticidal effect (Block et al. 2020; Taye and Borkataki 2020). However, establishing the causal link between genetic control and metabolic variation has proven challenging when using traditional approaches separately. To address these limitations, an approach combining quantitative genetics with metabolomics has emerged. This approach relies on the identification of metabolic QTL (mQTLs) in populations where resistance QTL (rQTLs) segregate, and on the determination of genomic co-localisation between both types of QTLs. This integrative strategy offers a powerful means to connect genetic architecture with biochemical mechanisms, potentially revealing the metabolic basis of quantitative resistance. By identifying co-localising mQTLs and rQTLs, researchers can narrow down candidate genes and metabolites simultaneously, providing mechanistic insights to inform effective gene pyramiding strategies.

In this review, we highlight this integrated mQTL/rQTL approach as a strategy to identify the molecular mechanisms implicated in plant-pest and -pathogen interactions. This approach may help to better understand the variability and genetic control of defence-related molecules and to inform breeders on the most efficient molecules and alleles to integrate into new resistant varieties. After a brief overview of the contributions of both quantitative genetics and metabolomics to understand plant resistance, we focus on studies demonstrating

the power of combining genetic control of specialised metabolism with resistance traits through genomic co-localisation. Finally, we discuss the advantages, limitations, and challenges of this strategy for developing more durable resistant varieties.

## 1.1 | Genetics of Plant Resistance

### 1. Identification of plant resistance genetic loci

For a long time, plant responses to pests and diseases have been strictly categorised as either ‘qualitative’ or ‘quantitative’, referring to distinct aspects of resistance at the genetic and phenotypic levels. In a given population of genetically different individuals, resistance phenotype may be described as either qualitative (often meaning ‘complete’) or quantitative (or ‘partial’) (Roux et al. 2014; Niks et al. 2015; Corwin and Kliebenstein 2017). However, these terms are also used to describe the genetic control of a trait: monogenic and polygenic inheritances are respectively defined as ‘qualitative’ (associated genes are referred to as ‘major’ or ‘R’ genes) and ‘quantitative’ (involving notably resistance Quantitative Trait Loci; rQTLs). Morever, quantitative phenotypes may have qualitative inheritance and vice versa (Niks et al. 2015). Furthermore, additional parameters, such as pest and pathogen diversity, environmental conditions, and natural mutations in genes, are believed to alter the strength of resistance conferred by R genes, leading to quantitative variation in what was previously termed ‘qualitative’ resistance (Roux et al. 2014). Therefore, combining resistance loci based on their genetic control or observed phenotype might not be the most accurate way to enhance resistance durability. Instead, it has been proposed to integrate complementary molecular pathways in breeding material.

Hundreds of studies aiming at identifying genomic regions implicated in quantitative resistance to pests and diseases have been undertaken and mostly rely on two main strategies: linkage mapping and genome-wide association study (GWAS). Both strategies involve genotyping of individuals with molecular markers and phenotyping for traits of interest, followed by statistical analyses linking markers to the trait variation. Estimation size of the identified genomic regions depends on the effect of the resistance gene, mapping populations available, which will then influence the extent of studied diversity, recombination profiles, marker density and most of all, the ability to identify causal genes associated with traits of interest (St. Clair 2010).

Linkage mapping uses artificial crosses between genotypes to create mapping populations. Various population types can be developed according to the species biology and research goals which will impact result accuracy (see Box 1; reviewed in Collard et al. 2005; Xu et al. 2017). In addition, limited generations restrict the number of recombination events, leading frequently to large confidence intervals that span many genes. Extensive mapping resolution can be achieved through fine-mapping studies implying a high number of offsprings (~500 to > 10 000 if available) which will increase the number of
**BOX 1** | Plant populations for genetic analyses: Definition and methods.

Autogamous species

Biparental

**F1 progenies:** cross between two individuals with homozygous genomes leading to a generation of heterozygous individuals.

**F2 and Back-Cross (BC):** F2 progenies are derived from the selfing of a single F1 plant, while BC progenies result from crossing a F1 plant with one of its parents. Each individual of these two types of progenies is unique because different recombination events happen in each individual. Replicates are only possible by exploiting vegetative propagation, which is not a common mode of reproduction in most autogamous species.

**Recombinant Inbred Lines (RIL):** RIL are derived from self-pollinated F2 plants over six to eight generations. One seed per plant is conserved at each generation, which is called ‘single-seed selection’. Similarly to F2 progenies, RIL are composed of unique individuals but they are fully homozygous. They can be maintained indefinitely through selfing.

**Doubled Haploids (DH):** DH progenies are produced by doubling the chromosome number of gametes in F1 plants, with plants being regenerated using tissue culture techniques. They are equivalent to RIL in terms of recombination event number. They can be maintained indefinitely through selfing.

**Near-Isogenic Lines (NIL):** NIL individuals are nearly identical except for a chromosomal region, containing the locus of interest. They are created through successive backcrosses during which the locus of interest is selected, usually using molecular markers. In many cases, NIL are constructed to confirm previously identified genetic loci that explain part of the variation observed in a specific trait of interest.

**Introgression Lines (IL):** IL are developed by successive backcrossing of an interspecific F1 hybrid with the cultivated parent. The introgression of the region of interest is typically managed through marker-assisted selection.

**Backcross Introgression Lines (BIL):** BIL are produced by two successive backcrosses of an interspecific F1 hybrid with the cultivated parent, followed by six generations of selfing. They are similar to RIL but one parent is usually a close-related species. They can be maintained indefinitely through selfing.

Multiparental

**Nested Association Mapping (NAM):** NAM populations consist of numerous RIL progenies, resulting from the crossing of several donor parents with a common parent. Hundred of RIL can be derived from each biparental cross, leading to a higher number of individuals. This material increases allelic diversity and QTL resolution comparing to RIL studies.

**Multi-Parent Advanced Generation Inter-Cross (MAGIC):** MAGIC progenies are created by following a tunnel crossing pattern, generally starting with multiple parents (4, 8 or even 16). Parents are crossed and resulting F1 plants are then inter-crossed over multiple generations. Thus, resulting genotypes are random mosaics of the founder ones.

Alternatives for strict allogamous (i.e non self-
pollinating) species

**Pseudo-F1, -F2 and -BC:** Genomes of allogamous species are highly heterozygous thus F1 plants result from crossing two unrelated individuals, leading to pseudo-F1 progenies. An additional generation, to produce pseudo-F2 or pseudo-BC, is sometimes carried out. Pseudo-F2 progenies result from the cross of two full-sibling pseudo-F1 plants; and pseudo-backcross progenies are produced by crossing one pseudo-F1 plant with one of its parents or with another accession.

recombination events. Additionally, multi-parental pop-
ulations, such as MAGIC and NAM progenies (see
Box 1), are suitable to overcome the limitations of using
bi-parental families by increasing the number of
recombination events and allelic diversity (Korte and
Farlow 2013; Gage et al. 2020; Scott et al. 2020).

GWAS relies on diversified material (composed of elite cultivars, landraces, wild relatives and/or exotic accessions) with hundreds of genotypes providing a wide range of allele combinations (Xu et al. 2017; Demirjian et al. 2023). However, this strategy is less effective at detecting rare alleles with large effect sizes, which may be common for resistance genes underlying QTLs (Louthan and Kay 2011; Korte and Farlow 2013).

2. Molecular mechanisms underlying resistance
genetic loci

From such approaches, many sources of resistance have been
mapped in various crops and are considered as valuable
resources in breeding. On a functional aspect, accumulation of
evidence has proposed the role of specific mechanisms behind R
gene expression. From the Flor's model (1971) to the 'zig-zag
model' (Jones and Dangl 2006), R genes have always been
associated with the recognition of threats in plants. This
recognition might be ensured by direct or indirect protein in-
teractions, through intra-cellular or cell-surface receptors, that
target 'specific virulence effectors' or more conserved
microbial-, damage- or herbivore-associated molecular patterns
(respectively, MAMPs, DAMPs or HAMPs). To date, hundreds
of R genes have been cloned and most of these genes were
indeed described as encoding receptor proteins that recognise
pathogens. Nonetheless, only a few of them led to a loss of plant
susceptibility by disarming the pathogen and interrupting key
pathogenic processes (Kourelis and van der Hoorn 2018; van
der Burgh and Joosten 2019).

Regarding rQTLs, the underlying molecular mechanisms are
much less studied compared to R genes. To our knowledge, only
a few genes with partial effects behind rQTLs have been cloned
(Niks et al. 2015; French et al. 2016; Pilet-Nayel et al. 2017). Some of these genes have been shown to be involved in recognition as an altered or 'weaker' form of R genes (Li et al. 1999; Vollrath et al. 2021). In contrast, other rQTLs have been proposed to be involved in signalling or in downstream pathways. For instance, two rQTLs have been associated to kinase genes in *Triticum* and Arabidopsis, suggesting a role in signalling (Fu et al. 2009; Huard-Chauveau et al. 2013). Another study in maize showed the association of a rQTL to three foliar diseases with a candidate gene encoding an enzyme involved in the phenylpropanoid pathway and lignin production (Yang et al. 2017). In potato, quantitative resistance to late blight was mainly associated with cell wall thickening due to deposition of hydroxycinnamic acid amides, flavonoids and alkaloids (Yogendra et al. 2014, 2015). To sum up, the causal genes underlying rQTLs encode kinases, transcription factors, metabolic enzymes, transporters and altered receptors, which cover various functions within the array of defence mechanisms (Pilet-Nayel et al. 2017).

In recent decades, development of Next-Generation Sequencing tools has enhanced genotyping capacities rendering phenotyping as the major bottleneck since quality and reproducibility of trait measurements are crucial to avoid biases and enhance the resolution of QTL mapping (Huang and Han 2014). Resistance to insects and pathogens is usually measured through visible/calculated traits reflecting the plant defence capabilities (e.g., necrosis, leaf spot, presence of defensive structures like trichomes), the plant damages (e.g., level of leaf and fruit damages) or the pest susceptibility (e.g., survival rate, oviposition rate, pathogen quantification). Assessing multiple traits for one pathosystem could lead to the detection of several QTLs that may co-localise, offering additional clues to determine molecular mechanisms of resistance. However, scoring disease usually relies on ordinal or semi-quantitative scales, which provide less precision than quantitative methods (Poland and Nelson 2011). Development of new phenotypic approaches is, therefore, crucial to get more insights into the biological processes involved in plant resistance. One promising direction is the study of endophenotypes (Te Pas et al. 2017)—such as RNA (transcriptomics), proteins (proteomics), and metabolites (metabolomics)—which can help researchers to accurately capture the subtle variations in plant responses to environmental cues. Metabolites are indeed promising as direct products of gene expression and potential effectors of resistance mechanisms. The following sections will focus on systematic approaches to characterise plant defence metabolites (Part II) and link them to genetic control (Part III).

## 1.2 | Metabolomic Approaches and Plant Defence

### 1. Summary of plant defence metabolites

Due to their sessile nature, plants have acquired the ability to produce and release a huge diversity of metabolites, estimated between 200 000 and 1 000 000 in the plant kingdom, with around 5000 per plant species (Dixon and Strack 2003; Afendi et al. 2012; Venegas-Molina et al. 2021; Huang and Dudareva 2023). Plant metabolites are usually divided into two categories, namely (i) primary or common metabolites

(organic, nucleic and amino acids, sugars, lipids) presented in all organisms and essential for the cell viability and (ii) secondary or specialised metabolites which are species-specific and critical for the plant-environment interactions (Firn and Jones 2009; Fàbregas and Fernie 2021). While defence metabolites belong mainly to this latter category, primary metabolites may also contribute to plant defence by providing energy, reducing power and elemental substrates for the synthesis of induced metabolites, and sometimes exhibiting direct activity against pest and pathogens (Bolton 2009; Zaynab et al. 2019).

The main plant specialised metabolites involved in plant defence include terpenoids, phenolics, sulfur (S)- and nitrogen (N)-containing compounds with specific structures (Figure 1) (Hartmann 2007; Jan et al. 2021; Huang and Dudareva 2023). Each of these metabolite families has been the subject of relevant reviews regarding their biochemistry, biosynthesis and bioactivities (Vogt 2010; Pichersky and Raguso 2018; Blažević et al. 2020; Lichman 2021; Mitreiter and Gigolashvili 2021). They could contribute to defence either directly by repelling, deterring or altering pest performance or pathogen life cycle, either indirectly by recruiting natural enemies of specific pests/pathogens (Chen et al. 2008; Dicke and Baldwin 2010; Erb et al. 2012; Maag et al. 2014; Aljbory and Chen 2018; Hammerbacher et al. 2019; Singh et al. 2021). The accumulation profile of plant defence metabolites is highly variable, either systemic or local, either constitutive (phytoanticipins) or induced by the pathogen/herbivore (phytoalexins). These differences are related to the plant species, the metabolite nature and several other factors such as plant phenology.

Overall, understanding the role of specialised metabolism on plant defence is challenging for several reasons including the huge diversity of structure and usually low concentrations of these metabolites, the specificity of their distribution in the plant lineage, together with the specificity of their implication according to the pathosystem. These challenges highlight the need for systematic analytical approaches to characterise plant metabolomes and link metabolic diversity to defence functions.

### 2. Strategies to identify biomarkers in plant-pathogen and plant-pest interactions

Advances in analytical technologies over the past two decades have significantly expanded access to the plant metabolome. Core tools such as liquid/gas chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry (LC/GC-MS) and nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) are now widely available for metabolomic studies. In parallel, robust analytical metabolomic workflows have been developed (Figure 2). Such developments have facilitated the emergence of comparative metabolomics to elucidate plant-pathogen and plant-herbivore interactions. The main objective is to compare the accumulation of metabolites in plant tissues in order to understand defence mechanisms. A common approach is to analyze genotypes with contrasting resistance to pests or pathogens in order to identify biomarkers for breeding. This strategy has revealed resistance-related metabolites in crops such as tomatoes, cocoa, *Medicago truncatula*, *Senecio*
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**FIGURE 1** | Representation of the structural diversity of the plant specialised metabolism, categorised into four families. Phenolic compounds (for reviews, see Dong and Lin 2021; Ramaroson et al. 2022) include flavonoids, hydroxycinnamic acid esters and amides, tannins and the precursors of lignin. Terpenes are hydrocarbons characterised by a number of isoprene units while terpenoids may have additional functional groups (for reviews, see Boncan et al. 2020; Nagegowda and Gupta 2020). Alkaloids are nitrogen-containing compounds composed of a heterocyclic ring (for reviews, see Matsuura and Fett-Neto 2015; Bhambhani et al. 2021). Finally, the fourth category of plant defence metabolites classically considered is the sulfur-containing compound group including the well-described glucosinolates specific to the Brassicales order (for reviews, see Bloem et al. 2005; Künstler et al. 2020; Mitreiter and Gigolashvili 2021). [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]</figcaption></figure>

hybrids, and chrysanthemums (Leiss et al. 2009, 2013; Mirnezhad et al. 2010; Cai et al. 2017; Knollenberg et al. 2020). An alternative strategy is to target metabolites known to be induced after pest/pathogen attack, including terpenoids, alkaloids, and phenolics with deterrent or toxic effects (Kliebenstein et al. 2002; Agrawal and Kurashige 2003; Nanda et al. 2021). The identified metabolites vary widely across species and pathosystems, being influenced by factors such as developmental stage, environmental conditions and biotic interactions (Badri et al. 2013; Mansfield et al. 2017; Macel et al. 2019; Farahbakhsh et al. 2019; Seybold et al. 2020;

Mansfeld et al. 2020; Christensen et al. 2021; Zhang et al. 2021). Metabolomics also provides insight into the timing and spatial distribution of plant defences. However, to confirm a biomarker's role in resistance, functional validation is essential. While comparative metabolomics successfully identifies resistance-associated metabolites, it provides limited information about their genetic control and heritability. To integrate these metabolic insights into breeding programmes, approaches combining metabolic profiling with genetic mapping are essential. This integration represents the next frontier in understanding resistance mechanisms.
## 1.3 | Combining Quantitative Genetics With Metabolomics to Dissect Plant Resistance Mechanisms

As previously detailed in this review, both QTL mapping and metabolomic studies independently exhibit limitations to narrow down the number of candidate genes and metabolites

associated with plant resistance. Despite this partial knowledge, breeders can still use these insights to create and select resistant varieties. However, to effectively combine diversified molecular mechanisms within an optimal genotype, it is essential to fully characterise the functions of causal genes and the mode of action of key metabolites. In this last section, we will review

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**FIGURE 2** | Typical workflow for both untargeted and targeted metabolomics. The choice between targeted or untargeted approaches depends on the scientific question. Each approach comprises four steps. With the exception of sample harvesting, each step has an approach-specific protocol. The data annotation step is specific to the untargeted approach and is considered very challenging (Li and Gaquerel 2021; Perez de Souza and Fernie 2024). This involves comparing the MS² profiles to public or in-house spectral databases. As the diversity of spectral databases do not cover the structural diversity of plant metabolism, computational approaches have led to the development of complementary tools to assist with metabolite annotation from MS² data. For example (i) in silico fragmentation tools can extend the available fragmentation data from known metabolites, against which, unknown compounds can be compared (Wolf et al. 2010); (ii) molecular networks can classify unknown metabolites based on partial MS² profile similarity with known metabolites (Allard et al. 2016; Olivon et al. 2017; Nothias et al. 2020), and (iii) fragmentation spectra can be mined for specific fragmentation motifs that reveal substructures helping annotation of unknown compounds or, at least, classification into metabolic families (Dührkop et al. 2019; Rogers et al. 2019). Although plant metabolome annotation remains a major bottleneck, the dynamic of research in this domain, supported by artificial intelligence, could lead to major breakthroughs in the coming years as it has been achieved recently with the emergence of the AlphaFold software for the protein 3D structure elucidation (Jumper et al. 2021; Varadi et al. 2024). [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]</figcaption></figure>
studies that focus on dissecting the genetic control of plant
metabolism by searching for co-localisations between genomic
regions associated with resistance to pests/pathogens and
metabolite-related loci. Finally, we will discuss the advantages
and limitations of this methodology in the context of its appli-
cation in plant resistance breeding.

1. Emerging studies linking genetic control of both specialised metabolism and resistance-related phenotypic traits

The integration of metabolic profiling with QTL analysis
has transformed plant metabolome research by identifying
genomic regions linked to metabolite variations, thereby
revealing loci or genes involved in essential biosynthetic
pathways (Carreno-Quintero et al. 2012; Ding et al. 2020).
The co-localisation of mQTLs and phenotypic QTLs pro-
vides crucial insights into the genetic and biochemical
mechanisms underlying complex traits (Figure 3). In
particular, this co-localisation might help to understand
how metabolic variation can shape observable pheno-
types. This approach has been widely applied to the study
of various agronomic traits, including fruit quality, yield,
and resistance to abiotic stress (Schauer et al. 2006; Hill
et al. 2013, 2015; Shi et al. 2020; Labadie et al. 2020). For
instance, the co-localisation of mQTLs from the flavonoid-
lignin pathway with phenotypic QTL influencing plant
height suggests a role for specialised metabolites in regu-
lating the growth of foxtail millet (Wei et al. 2023). Like-
wise, the association between mQTLs for carotenoids and
QTLs for soluble solids underscores the putative role of
carotenoids in tomato fruit quality and nutritional value
(Capel et al. 2015). In the context of water stress, the
co-localisation of a mQTL for metabolites from the tri-
carboxylic acid cycle, and a QTL for grain yield and har-
vest index, suggests a link between energy metabolism
and drought adaptation in bread wheat (Hill et al. 2013).
Beyond agronomic-related traits, extending this perspec-
tive to resistance traits offers a powerful approach to
decipher how metabolic variations contribute to plant
defence mechanisms.

To date, around 10 studies have applied this approach in plant—insect and—pathogen interactions (Table 1). Interestingly, the advances of high-throughput sequencing technology combined with metabolomic tools improvement offered the opportunity for most species to employ the mQTL/rQTL approach, even those with limited genomic information (Kuzina et al. 2011; Feiner et al. 2021). As far as we know, this method has not yet been applied to major crop species such as rice, wheat or maize. For these species, which benefit from extensive genetic and genomic resources, it appears that alternative methods, such as construction of near-isogenic lines (NILs, see Box 1) (Hamzehzarghani et al. 2008; Gunaiah et al. 2012; Rossouw et al. 2019) or

fine-mapping populations, have been preferred to char-
acterise molecular mechanisms underlying quantitative
resistance. Nonetheless, the mQTL/rQTL approach has
been used on tomato and on the model species *Arabi-
dopsis thaliana* (see Table 1).

2. Searching for mQTL/rQTL co-localisations highlights specific features of genetic resistance

The research of co-localisations between mQTLs and rQTLs reveals particular patterns in the genetic architecture of plant metabolism. Specifically, ‘mQTL hotspots’ were recurrently found and referred to a large number of mQTLs—between 10 and 200—clustering in one specific genomic region (van den Oever-van den Elsen et al. 2016; Vosman et al. 2019; Maharijaya et al. 2019; Wagner et al. 2019; Koutouan et al. 2023). Interestingly, the detection of mQTL hotspots has been attributed to different molecular mechanisms: for instance in tomato, Vosman et al. (2019) identified a major hotspot of mQTLs co-localising with a rQTL and a QTL for type-IV trichome density. They proposed that the gene underlying such pattern may play a role in regulating type-IV trichome development, where acylsugars are synthesised and stored. On the other hand, on rapeseed, Wagner et al. (2019) found a mQTL hotspot co-localising with a major-effect rQTL but also with the R gene *Pb-Bn2*. Since some rQTL are thought to be altered form of R genes, often implicated in recognition of pests/pathogens, the co-localisation of a mQTL hotspot with a major-effect rQTL could suggest that the causal gene may encode a receptor that triggers a metabolic cascade.

Alternatively, other rQTLs may have a lower effect and less direct impact on metabolites. The underlying genes could be either involved in signalling regulation or enzyme production of a biosynthetic pathway. For instance, Rowe and Kliebenstein (2008) identified camalexin-QTL co-localising with a rQTL but no camalexin biosynthetic genes were found in the underlying genomic region. Yet, they proposed the involvement of the rQTL in camalexin signalling rather than in its synthesis. In carrot, Koutouan et al. (2023) identified around 10 mQTLs for terpenes co-localising with rQTL. Intriguingly, a fraction of these mQTLs shared similar levels of explained phenotypic variance with associated rQTLs, suggesting terpenes as the most evident candidates behind *Alternaria dauci* resistance. Alternatively, lower explained phenotypic values in mQTLs would suggest a ‘cocktail effect’ where several different metabolites are needed to achieve observed levels of resistance (Maharijaya et al. 2019). Moreover, transcription factor and terpene synthase genes were highlighted as good candidates in the overlapping confidence intervals of rQTLs leading to further transcriptomic analyses (Koutouan et al. 2023). In this study, functional analyses including bioassays revealed that two of the
1. Population design

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

* Parental lines screening

* Mapping populations: F₂/BC/RILs/...

* GWAS

* Number of individuals (N ≥ 150)

2. Data acquisition & QTL mapping

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>

3. Integration/Co-localisation

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>

4. Functional validation

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /></figure>

5. Application in crop breeding

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>**FIGURE 3** | Legend on next page.</figcaption></figure>
seven candidate terpenes exhibited antifungal activity, suggesting a direct role for these compounds in disease resistance to *A. dauci*. Therefore, studying simultaneously the genetic control of specialised metabolism and resistance can shed light on the molecular mechanisms underlying rQTLs whether they have a role in recognition, signalisation or defence compound production.

### 3. Challenges and future directions

The combined mQTL/rQTL approach relies on the hypothesis that resistance is based on specialised metabolism although other types of defence-related molecules, such as pathogenesis-related (PR) proteins, may also play an important role. In addition, these approaches are inherently limited by the subset of metabolites that can be detected, which depends on the extraction methods, solvents, and analytical settings employed. Consequently, a lack of co-localisation between mQTLs and rQTLs, as observed by Vezzulli et al. (2019), does not represent an absence of information. Rather, it provides valuable insights by suggesting that the resistance mechanism underlying the rQTL may not be directly associated with the specialised metabolites detected, and it invites further exploration of alternative explanations—ranging from experimental and technical biases to genuinely distinct defence pathways.

To take this further, additional resources may be useful for characterising the molecular functions of rQTLs and complement this approach. For instance, other omics datasets such as whole genomes (Kuzina et al. 2011; Vezzulli et al. 2019) or transcriptome could be used to explore candidate genes (e.g., targeted expression analyses in Vezzulli et al. 2019; Koutouan et al. 2023, or untargeted RNA-seq study in van Haperen et al. 2021). The approach is indeed transferable to transcriptomic datasets, which can also be combined with QTL mapping to identify expression QTLs (eQTLs), as well as proteomic datasets for protein QTLs (pQTLs) (Cubillos et al. 2012; Zhou et al. 2021). Ultimately, combining QTL mapping with molecular datasets and looking for multiple QTL co-localisations in 'system genetic approaches' will help researchers to unravel plant defence mechanisms (Clark et al. 2024).

One of the benefits of the approach is to narrow down the number of candidate genes and metabolites in comparison to linkage mapping and comparative metabolomic studies. The list of candidate genes can further be reduced by focusing, primarily, on the overlapping part of mQTL and rQTL intervals (Vosman et al. 2019; Koutouan et al. 2023). The resolution of rQTL intervals remains crucial because broad intervals limit the power of colocalization, whereas fine mapping and the identification of recombinant individuals can narrow these intervals, guide targeted re-metabotyping, and improve mQTL precision.

MetaQTL mapping offers complementary path to the search for co-localisations, weaving together multiple datasets and genetic backgrounds in broader meta-analyses (Badji et al. 2018; Wagner et al. 2019). Finally, while gene annotation continues to advance steadily, metabolite annotation remains laborious, and current databases still require further enrichment.

Following the identification of candidates, a final step of validation is still needed for both genes and metabolites. Gene validation remains challenging for some species because transformation or regeneration of cells, tissues, or plants is often time-consuming and labour-intensive, requiring specialised experimental skills. In addition, producing transgenic plants for specific genotypes remains complex, and the biological basis for genotype-dependent transformation is still largely unexplained (Anjanappa and Gruissem 2021). For metabolites, about half of the studies in this field employ untargeted approaches, which allow the discovery of novel metabolites, but suffered from limitations in precisely quantifying variation in metabolic content (Table 1). Thus, additional targeted metabolic analysis is often required to accurately assess quantitative differences in candidate metabolite contents and explore their role using in vitro bioassays (Firdaus et al. 2013; Koutouan et al. 2023). Although precise quantification remains challenging, recent methods using labelled isotopes (Boutet-Mercey et al. 2018) offer promising alternatives.

Once the number of candidates has been reduced, validating specific compounds with their proposed mode of action in plant resistance requires considerable effort. For example, Koutouan et al. (2023) identified seven candidate terpenes that could explain resistance to *A. dauci*. They tested four of these terpenes for antifungal properties and validated two of them. These results clearly demonstrate that one chemical family can be induced in the plant defence response, while only a few compounds are directly involved in this response. However, it is important to consider the potential 'cocktail effect', whereby each component may have limited efficacy against the pathogen individually, yet collectively contribute substantially to resistance. Moreover, thousands of mQTLs can be mapped all over the genome leading to fortuitous co-localisations and increasing the number of bioassays to be performed. Thus, functional validation remains an essential step, even if time-consuming. In addition to laboratory assays, the potential protection effect of metabolites can also be evaluated *in planta* by external application (Feiner et al. 2021). Interestingly, the identification of metabolites with external protective roles could motivate the development of eco-friendly biopesticides (Lavoir et al. 2022) while those acting inside the plant could be the target of breeding schemes, if they have no impact on customer expectations (Le Clerc et al. 2019). Finally, additional studies are needed to explore the variability of metabolite genetic architecture in

**FIGURE 3** | Integrating resistance and metabolic QTL mapping for crop breeding. QTL mapping studies rely on genetic populations (summarised in Box 1 and in the above section of the manuscript) on which experiments are conducted. By combining genotyping data with (i) resistance phenotyping and (ii) metabolomics, researchers can map resistance QTL (rQTL) and metabolic QTL (mQTL), respectively. Then, the genetic positions of these QTLs can be compared directly to identify genomic co-localisations (where confidence intervals overlap). Identifying such overlapping loci can narrow down candidate genes and metabolites that may be involved in resistance. The involvement of these candidates should be confirmed through complementary studies such as gene editing for candidate genes or bioassays for metabolite candidates before being incorporated into elite material through breeding schemes. [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
<table><caption>TABLE 1 | Summary of studies employing the mQTL-rQTL approach.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Crop</th><th rowspan="2">Type</th><th rowspan="2">Precisions</th><th rowspan="2">Metabolomic analyses</th><th rowspan="2">Phenotypic trait studied</th><th rowspan="2">Range of phenotypic variance explained by resistance QTL (%)</th><th rowspan="2">Putative or presumed mechanisms identified</th><th rowspan="2">Genes</th><th colspan="2">Exploration of candidates</th></tr><tr><th>Metabolites</th><th>Reference</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Arabidopsis thaliana</td><td>Pathogen</td><td>Botrytis cinerea (fungus): twelve individual isolates</td><td>Targeted on camalexin</td><td>Measures of fungal lesion diameter</td><td>2–12</td><td>Camalexin signalling</td><td>—</td><td>Antimicrobial role of camalexin already known</td><td>Rowe and Kliebenstein (2008)</td></tr><tr><td>Wintercress (Barbarea vulgaris)</td><td>Pest</td><td>Phyllostreta nemorum (herbivore)</td><td>Targeted LCMS on saponins and glucosinolates</td><td>Larvae survival and leaf hairiness</td><td>24–30</td><td>Identification of two resistance QTL probably linked to saponin production. No link between hairiness, glucosinolate and these resistance loci.</td><td>—</td><td>Already known inhibitory feeding effect for one saponin out of the four.</td><td>Kuzina et al. (2011)</td></tr><tr><td>Wild tomato (Solanum galapagense)</td><td>Pest</td><td>Bemisia tabaci (whitefly): one specie</td><td>Untargeted GCMS and targeted LCMS for acylsugars in bulks</td><td>Pre-adult and adult survival, oviposition rate, number and trichome type</td><td>9–80</td><td>Regulation of trichome Type IV formation, where specific metabolites including acylsugars would be synthetised and stored</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>Firdaus et al. (2013)</td></tr><tr><td>Turnip (Brassica rapa)</td><td>Pathogen</td><td>Botrytis cinerea (fungus): five individual isolates</td><td>Targeted on glucosinolates</td><td>Measures of lesion size</td><td>Not explicit: minor</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>Depending of the pathogen/pest, GSL can have toxic properties or alter defence signalling pathways</td><td>Zhang et al. 2016</td></tr><tr><td>Wild tomato (Solanum pennellii)</td><td>Pest</td><td>Bemisia tabaci (whitefly): one specie</td><td>Untargeted GCMS</td><td>Adult survival and oviposition rate</td><td>Around 10</td><td>Identification of metabolite candidates (including precursors of acylsugars) that need further bioassays</td><td>—</td><td>van den Oever-van den Elsen et al. (2016)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Pepper (Capsicum sp.)</td><td>Pest</td><td>Frankliniella occidentalis (thrips): one specie</td><td>Untargeted LCMS</td><td>Larvae survival and leaf damage</td><td>44–52</td><td>Identification of candidates (diterpene glycoside and</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>Maharjava et al. (2019)</td></tr></tbody></table>

(Continues)
<table><caption>TABLE 1 | (Continued)</caption><thead><tr><th colspan="4">Biotic stress</th><th colspan="4">Exploration of candidates</th></tr><tr><th>Crop</th><th>Type</th><th>Precisions</th><th>Metabolomic analyses</th><th>Phenotypic trait studied</th><th>Range of phenotypic variance explained by resistance QTL (%)</th><th>Putative or presumed mechanisms identified</th><th>Genes</th><th>Metabolites</th><th>Reference</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Grapevine (Vitis sp.)</td><td>Pathogen (Plasmopara viticola (oomycete))</td><td></td><td>Targeted on phenolics especially stilbenoids</td><td>Disease severity and incidence measurements on inoculated plants and on detached leaves</td><td>10-20</td><td>capsianosides) that need further bioassays</td><td>—</td><td>RT-qPCR</td><td>Vezzulli et al. (2019)</td></tr><tr><td>Wild tomato (Solanum galapagense)</td><td>Pest (Bemisia tabaci (whitefly): two species)</td><td></td><td>Untargeted LCMS and targeted LCMS for acylsugars</td><td>Trichome density, number of living whiteflies and eggs</td><td>2-80</td><td>Regulation of trichome Type IV formation, where specific metabolites including acylsugars would be synthetised and stored</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>Vosman et al. (2019)</td></tr><tr><td>Rapeseed (Brassica napus)</td><td>Pathogen (Plasmodiophora brassicae (protist))</td><td></td><td>Untargeted LCMS and targeted of non-structural carbohydrates, polyols, organic acids, and amino acids</td><td>DNA-pathogen quantification and Disease Index</td><td>1-80</td><td>Constitutive accumulation of four compounds may play a role in partial resistance, specifically citric acid could represent a consistent source of organic carbon for the pathogen</td><td>—</td><td>Wagner et al. (2019)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Hop (Humulus lupus)</td><td>Pathogen (Pseudoperonospora humuli (oomycete))</td><td></td><td>Untargeted LCMS with 45 standards known to be present in hops</td><td>Percentage of fungal sporulation on leaves</td><td>Not explicit</td><td>Phenylpropanoids as prophylactic compounds (constitutive) with a direct activity or as precursors of active compounds</td><td>—</td><td>Two phenylpropanoids were tested for their protective activity in planta, in cocktail</td><td>Feiner et al. (2021)</td></tr></tbody></table>

(Continues)
<table><caption>TABLE 1 | (Continued)</caption><thead><tr><th colspan="4">Biotic stress</th><th colspan="4">Exploration of candidates</th></tr><tr><th>Crop</th><th>Type</th><th>Precisions</th><th>Metabolomic analyses</th><th>Phenotypic trait studied</th><th>Range of phenotypic variance explained by resistance QTL (%)</th><th>Putative or presumed mechanisms identified</th><th>Genes</th><th>Metabolites</th><th>Reference</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Carrot (Daucus carotta)</td><td>Pathogen</td><td>Alternaria dauci (fungus): natural infestation</td><td>Targeted on terpenes</td><td>Percentage of foliar damages</td><td>7-20</td><td>Two terpene candidates out of seven showed antifungal activity suggesting a direct role in resistance</td><td>Microarray analysis</td><td>In vitro bioassays for four terpenes</td><td>Koutouan et al. (2023)</td></tr></tbody></table>

Abbreviations: GCMS and LCMS, gas and liquid chromatography coupled to mass spectrometry; QTL, quantitative trait loci; RT-qPCR, real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction.

different plant organs (Kittipol et al. 2019). In order to deploy such findings in commercial varieties, it is important to take into account the possible negative effect in plant organs that are actually consumed.

## 2 | Conclusion

The combination of rQTLs and mQTLs in plant-pest/pathogen interactions studies offers valuable insights into the exploration of biochemical basis of resistance in many species. By identifying loci responsible for resistance trait variation and their co-localisation with mQTLs, researchers can narrow down the number of metabolites requiring further analyses and experimental validation. New hypotheses can be formulated on the potential genes underlying rQTLs thanks to the genetic architecture of mQTLs and their annotation, if available. These results help unravelling metabolic pathways involved in plant resistance to pests/diseases, which is crucial to propose genetic factors mobilising complementary molecular mechanisms to combine within elite crops by gene pyramiding. This strategy offers concrete prospects for sustainable agriculture by developing durably-resistant varieties, better adapted to diverse agro-environmental conditions. Several questions still need to be addressed in order to integrate these results in breeding schemes. For instance, the functions and impacts of identified resistance metabolites could also be investigated to target multipest regulation by testing other pathosystems. Their compatibility with customer expectations should also be considered. Ultimately, this approach provides key elements for ideal chemotype constitution (i.e., genotypes having differences in quantity and quality of their biochemical components). By characterising the genetic control of specialised metabolism, it also informs on which breeding tools (genomic selection, fast track breeding, New Breeding Techniques) would be the most appropriate to quickly and precisely incorporate genetic factors within a potential new variety.

## Acknowledgements

Romane Lapous, PhD fellowship, was supported by a grant from the BAP (Plant Biology and Breeding) division of INRAE and the 'Pays de la Loire' region (France). Komla Exonam Amegan PhD fellowship was supported by a grant from the French government managed by the Agence Nationale de la Recherche as part of the programme d'investissement d'avenir under the reference ANR-20-PCPA-0003 (CapZeroPhyto project). The authors greatly thank Christophe Robin, Alan Kergunteuil and Florent Magot (University of Lorraine, LAE, INRAE, F-54000 Nancy, France) for discussions and advice on previous versions of this manuscript. This work was supported by the Conseil Régional des Pays de la Loire; Institut National de Recherche pour l'Agriculture, l'Alimentation et l'Environnement; Agence Nationale de la Recherche ANR-20-PCPA-0003 (CapZeroPhyto project).

## Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

## Data Availability Statement

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.
## References

Afendi, F. M., T. Okada, M. Yamazaki, et al. 2012. "KNApSAcK Family Databases: Integrated Metabolite-Plant Species Databases for Multi-faceted Plant Research." *Plant and Cell Physiology* 53: e1.

Agrawal, A. A., and N. S. Kurashige. 2003. "A Role for Isothiocyanates in Plant Resistance Against the Specialist Herbivore Pieris Rapae." *Journal of Chemical Ecology* 29: 1403-1415.

Aljbory, Z., and M.-S. Chen. 2018. "Indirect Plant Defense Against Insect Herbivores: A Review." *Insect Science* 25: 2-23.

Allard, P.-M., T. Péresse, J. Bisson, et al. 2016. "Integration of Molecular Networking and In-Silico MS/MS Fragmentation for Natural Products Dereplication." *Analytical Chemistry* 88: 3317-3323.

Anjanappa, R. B., and W. Gruissem. 2021. "Current Progress and Challenges in Crop Genetic Transformation." *Journal of Plant Physiology* 261: 153411.

Badji, A., M. Otim, L. Machida, et al. 2018. "Maize Combined Insect Resistance Genomic Regions and Their Co-Localization With Cell Wall Constituents Revealed by Tissue-Specific QTL Meta-Analyses." *Frontiers in Plant Science* 9: 895.

Badri, D. V., G. Zolla, M. G. Bakker, D. K. Manter, and J. M. Vivanco. 2013. "Potential Impact of Soil Microbiomes on the Leaf Metabolome and on Herbivore Feeding Behavior." *New Phytologist* 198: 264-273.

Bhambhani, S., K. R. Kondhare, and A. P. Giri. 2021. "Diversity in Chemical Structures and Biological Properties of Plant Alkaloids." *Molecules* 26: 3374.

Blažević, I., S. Montaut, F. Burčul, et al. 2020. "Glucosinolate Structural Diversity, Identification, Chemical Synthesis and Metabolism in Plants." *Phytochemistry* 169: 112100.

Block, A. K., C. T. Hunter, S. E. Sattler, et al. 2020. "Fighting on Two Fronts: Elevated Insect Resistance in Flooded Maize." *Plant, Cell & Environment* 43: 223-234.

Bloem, E., S. Haneklaus, and E. Schnug. 2005. "Significance of Sulfur Compounds in the Protection of Plants Against Pests and Diseases." *Journal of Plant Nutrition* 28: 763-784.

Bolton, M. D. 2009. "Primary Metabolism and Plant Defense—Fuel for the Fire." *Molecular Plant-Microbe Interactions* 22: 487-497.

Boncan, D. A. T., S. S. K. Tsang, C. Li, et al. 2020. "Terpenes and Terpenoids in Plants: Interactions With Environment and Insects." *International Journal of Molecular Sciences* 21: 7382.

Boutet-Mercey, S., F. Perreau, A. Roux, et al. 2018. "Validated Method for Strigolactone Quantification by Ultra High-Performance Liquid Chromatography - Electrospray Ionisation Tandem Mass Spectrometry Using Novel Deuterium Labelled Standards." *Phytochemical Analysis* 29: 59-68.

Brown, J. K. M. 2015. "Durable Resistance of Crops to Disease: A Darwinian Perspective." *Annual Review of Phytopathology* 53: 513-539.

van der Burgh, A. M., and M. H. A. J. Joosten. 2019. "Plant Immunity: Thinking Outside and Inside the Box." *Trends in Plant Science* 24: 587-601.

Cai, F., B. S. Watson, D. Meek, et al. 2017. "Medicago Truncatula Oleanolic-Derived Saponins Are Correlated With Caterpillar Deterrence." *Journal of Chemical Ecology* 43: 712-724.

Capel, C., A. Fernández del Carmen, J. M. Alba, et al. 2015. "Wide-Genome QTL Mapping of Fruit Quality Traits in a Tomato RIL Population Derived From the Wild-Relative Species Solanum Pimpinellifolium L. Theoretical and Applied Genetics." *Theoretische und angewandte Genetik* 128: 2019-2035.

Carreno-Quintero, N., A. Acharjee, C. Maliepaard, et al. 2012. "Untargeted Metabolic Quantitative Trait Loci Analyses Reveal a Relationship Between Primary Metabolism and Potato Tuber Quality." *Plant Physiology* 158: 1306-1318.

Chen, J. D., D. Q. Feng, Z. W. Yang, Z. C. Wang, Y. Qiu, and Y. M. Lin. 2008. "Antifouling Metabolites From the Mangrove Plant Ceriops Tagal." *Molecules* 13: 212-219.

Chen, X., P. Liu, L. Mei, et al. 2021. "Xa7, a New Executor *R* Gene That Confers Durable and Broad-Spectrum Resistance to Bacterial Blight Disease in Rice." *Plant Communications* 2: 100143.

Christensen, S. A., E. A. Santana, H. T. Alborn, A. K. Block, and C. A. Chamberlain. 2021. "Metabolomics by UHPLC-HRMS Reveals the Impact of Heat Stress on Pathogen-Elicited Immunity in Maize." *Metabolomics* 17: 6.

Clark, N. M., G. Song, M. K. Kabahuma, et al. 2024. Regulatory Architecture of Disease Resistance in Maize Revealed by Multi-omic Systems Genetics.: 2024.08.29.610401.

Le Clerc, V., C. Aubert, V. Cottet, et al. 2019. "Resistant Carrots to *Alternaria Dauci* or Tasty Carrots: Should We Choose?" *Acta Horticulturae* 1264: 199-204.

Collard, B. C. Y., M. Z. Z. Jahufer, J. B. Brouwer, and E. C. K. Pang. 2005. "An Introduction to Markers, Quantitative Trait Loci (QTL) Mapping and Marker-Assisted Selection for Crop Improvement: The Basic Concepts." *Euphytica* 142: 169-196.

Corwin, J. A., and D. J. Kliebenstein. 2017. "Quantitative Resistance: More Than Just Perception of a Pathogen." *Plant Cell* 29: 655-665.

Cubillos, F. A., V. Coustham, and O. Loudet. 2012. "Lessons From eQTL Mapping Studies: Non-Coding Regions and Their Role Behind Natural Phenotypic Variation in Plants." *Current Opinion in Plant Biology* 15: 192-198.

Delourme, R., L. Bousset, M. Ermel, et al. 2014. "Quantitative Resistance Affects the Speed of Frequency Increase but Not the Diversity of the Virulence Alleles Overcoming a Major Resistance Gene to Leptosphaeria Maculans in Oilseed Rape." *Infection, Genetics and Evolution* 27: 490-499.

Demirjian, C., F. Vailleau, R. Berthomé, and F. Roux. 2023. "Genome-Wide Association Studies in Plant Pathosystems: Success or Failure?" *Trends in Plant Science* 28: 471-485.

Dicke, M., and I. T. Baldwin. 2010. "The Evolutionary Context for Herbivore-Induced Plant Volatiles: Beyond the 'Cry for Help.'" *Trends in Plant Science* 15: 167-175.

Ding, Y., P. R. Weckwerth, E. Poretsky, et al. 2020. "Genetic Elucidation of Interconnected Antibiotic Pathways Mediating Maize Innate Immunity." *Nature Plants* 6: 1375-1388.

Dixon, R. A., and D. Strack. 2003. "Phytochemistry Meets Genome Analysis, and Beyond." *Phytochemistry* 62: 815-816.

Dong, N.-Q., and H.-X. Lin. 2021. "Contribution of Phenylpropanoid Metabolism to Plant Development and Plant-Environment Interactions." *Journal of Integrative Plant Biology* 63: 180-209.

Dührkop, K., M. Fleischauer, M. Ludwig, et al. 2019. "SIRIUS 4: A Rapid Tool for Turning Tandem Mass Spectra Into Metabolite Structure Information." *Nature Methods* 16: 299-302.

Erb, M., S. Meldau, and G. A. Howe. 2012. "Role of Phytohormones in Insect-Specific Plant Reactions." *Trends in Plant Science* 17: 250-259.

Fàbregas, N., and A. R. Fernie. 2021. "The Interface of Central Metabolism With Hormone Signaling in Plants." *Current Biology* 31: R1535-R1548.

Farahbakhsh, F., H. Hamzehzarghani, A. Massah, M. Tortosa, M. Yassaie, and V. M. Rodriguez. 2019. "Comparative Metabolomics of Temperature Sensitive Resistance to Wheat Streak Mosaic Virus (WSMV) in Resistant and Susceptible Wheat Cultivars." *Journal of Plant Physiology* 237: 30-42.

Feiner, A., N. Pitra, P. Matthews, K. Pillen, L. A. Wessjohann, and D. Riewe. 2021. "Downy Mildew Resistance is Genetically Mediated by
Prophylactic Production of Phenylpropanoids in Hop." *Plant, Cell & Environment* 44: 323-338.

Firdaus, S., A. W. van Heusden, N. Hidayati, et al. 2013. "Identification and QTL Mapping of Whitefly Resistance Components in Solanum Galapagense." *Theoretical and Applied Genetics* 126: 1487-1501.

Firn, R. D., and C. G. Jones. 2009. "A Darwinian View of Metabolism: Molecular Properties Determine Fitness." *Journal of Experimental Botany* 60: 719-726.

French, E., B.-S. Kim, and A. S. Iyer-Pascuzzi. 2016. "Mechanisms of Quantitative Disease Resistance in Plants." *Seminars in Cell & Developmental Biology* 56: 201-208.

Fry, W. 2008. "Phytophthora Infestans: The Plant (and R Gene) Destroyer." *Molecular Plant Pathology* 9: 385-402.

Fu, D., C. Uauy, A. Distelfeld, et al. 2009. "A Novel Kinase-START Gene Confers Temperature-Dependent Resistance to Wheat Stripe Rust." *Science (New York, N.Y.)* 323: 1357-1360.

Gage, J. L., B. Monier, A. Giri, and E. S. Buckler. 2020. "Ten Years of the Maize Nested Association Mapping Population: Impact, Limitations, and Future Directions." *Plant Cell* 32: 2083-2093.

GUNNAIAH, R., A. C. KUSHALAPPA, R. Duggavathi, S. Fox, and D. J. Somers. 2012. "Integrated Metabolo-Proteomic Approach to Decipher the Mechanisms by Which Wheat QTL (Fhb1) Contributes to Resistance Against Fusarium Graminearum." *PLoS One* 7: e40695.

Hammerbacher, A., T. A. Coutinho, and J. Gershenzon. 2019. "Roles of Plant Volatiles in Defence Against Microbial Pathogens and Microbial Exploitation of Volatiles." *Plant, Cell & Environment* 42: 2827-2843.

Hamzehzarghani, H., V. Paranidharan, Y. Abu-Nada, A. C. Kushalappa, O. Mamer, and D. Somers. 2008. "Metabolic Profiling to Discriminate Wheat Near Isogenic Lines, With Quantitative Trait Loci at Chromosome 2DL, Varying in Resistance to Fusarium Head Blight." *Canadian Journal of Plant Science* 88: 789-797.

van Haperen, P., R. E. Voorrips, M. van Kaauwen, et al. 2021. "Fine Mapping of a Thrips Resistance QTL in Capsicum and the Role of Diterpene Glycosides in the Underlying Mechanism." *Theoretical and Applied Genetics* 134: 1557-1573.

Hartmann, T. 2007. "From Waste Products to Ecochemicals: Fifty Years Research of Plant Secondary Metabolism." *Phytochemistry* 68: 2831-2846.

Hill, C. B., J. D. Taylor, J. Edwards, et al. 2013. "Whole-Genome Mapping of Agronomic and Metabolic Traits to Identify Novel Quantitative Trait Loci in Bread Wheat Grown in a Water-Limited Environment." *Plant Physiology* 162: 1266-1281.

Hill, C. B., J. D. Taylor, J. Edwards, et al. 2015. "Detection of QTL for Metabolic and Agronomic Traits in Wheat With Adjustments for Variation at Genetic Loci That Affect Plant Phenology." *Plant Science* 233: 143-154.

Huang, X., and B. Han. 2014. "Natural Variations and Genome-Wide Association Studies in Crop Plants." *Annual Review of Plant Biology* 65: 531-551.

Huang, X.-Q., and N. Dudareva. 2023. "Plant Specialized Metabolism." *Current Biology* 33: R473-R478.

Huard-Chauveau, C., L. Perchepied, M. Debieu, et al. 2013. "An Atypical Kinase under Balancing Selection Confers Broad-Spectrum Disease Resistance in Arabidopsis." *PLoS Genetics* 9: e1003766.

Jan, R., S. Asaf, M. Numan, P. Lubna, and K.-M. Kim. 2021. "Plant Secondary Metabolite Biosynthesis and Transcriptional Regulation in Response to Biotic and Abiotic Stress Conditions." *Agronomy* 11: 968.

Jones, J. D. G., and J. L. Dangl. 2006. "The Plant Immune System." *Nature* 444: 323-329.

Jumper, J., R. Evans, A. Pritzel, et al. 2021. "Highly Accurate Protein Structure Prediction With Alphafold." *Nature* 596: 583-589.

Kittipol, V., Z. He, L. Wang, T. Doheny-Adams, S. Langer, and I. Bancroft. 2019. "Genetic Architecture of Glucosinolate Variation in Brassica napus." *Journal of Plant Physiology* 240: 152988.

Kliebenstein, D., D. Pedersen, B. Barker, and T. Mitchell-Olds. 2002. "Comparative Analysis of Quantitative Trait Loci Controlling Glucosinolates, Myrosinase and Insect Resistance in Arabidopsis Thaliana." *Genetics* 161: 325-332.

Knollenberg, B. J., G.-X. Li, J. D. Lambert, S. N. Maximova, and M. J. Guiltinan. 2020. "Clovamide, a Hydroxycinnamic Acid Amide, Is a Resistance Factor Against Phytophthora spp. in Theobroma Cacao." *Frontiers in Plant Science* 11: 617520.

Korte, A., and A. Farlow. 2013. "The Advantages and Limitations of Trait Analysis With GWAS: A Review." *Plant Methods* 9: 29.

Kourelis, J., and R. A. L. van der Hoorn. 2018. "Defended to the Nines: 25 Years of Resistance Gene Cloning Identifies Nine Mechanisms for R Protein Function." *The Plant Cell* 30: 285-299.

Koutouan, C. E., V. Le Clerc, A. Suel, et al. 2023. "Co-Localization of Resistance and Metabolic Quantitative Trait Loci on Carrot Genome Reveals Fungitoxic Terpenes and Related Candidate Genes Associated With the Resistance to Alternaria Dauci." *Metabolites* 13: 71.

Künstler, A., G. Gullner, A. L. Ádám, J. K. Kolozsváriné Nagy, and L. Király. 2020. "The Versatile Roles of Sulfur-Containing Biomolecules in Plant Defense—A Road to Disease Resistance." *Plants* 9: 1705.

Kuzina, V., J. K. Nielsen, J. M. Augustin, A. M. Torp, S. Bak, and S. B. Andersen. 2011. "Barbarea vulgaris Linkage Map and Quantitative Trait Loci for Saponins, Glucosinolates, Hairiness and Resistance to the Herbivore *Phyllotreta nemorum*." *Phytochemistry* 72: 188-198.

Labadie, M., G. Vallin, A. Petit, et al. 2020. "Metabolite Quantitative Trait Loci for Flavonoids Provide New Insights Into the Genetic Architecture of Strawberry (Fragaria × Ananassa) Fruit Quality." *Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry* 68: 6927-6939.

Lasserre-Zuber, P., V. Caffier, R. Stievenard, A. Lemarquand, B. Le Cam, and C.-E. Durel. 2018. "Pyramiding Quantitative Resistance With a Major Resistance Gene in Apple: From Ephemeral to Enduring Effectiveness in Controlling Scab." *Plant Disease* 102: 2220-2223.

Lavoir, A.-V., T. Michel, J.-L. Poëssel, and M. Siegwart. 2022. "Challenges in Developing Botanical Biopesticides for Pest Control." *In Extended Biocontrol*, edited by X. Fauvergue, A. Rusch, M. Barret, M. Bardin, E. Jacquin-Joly, T. Malausa, and C. Lannou, 161-170. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.

Leiss, K. A., G. Cristofori, R. van Steenis, R. Verpoorte, and P. G. L. Klinkhamer. 2013. "An Eco-Metabolomic Study of Host Plant Resistance to Western Flower Thrips in Cultivated, Biofortified and Wild Carrots." *Phytochemistry* 93: 63-70.

Leiss, K. A., F. Maltese, Y. H. Choi, R. Verpoorte, and P. G. L. Klinkhamer. 2009. "Identification of Chlorogenic Acid as a Resistance Factor for Thrips in Chrysanthemum." *Plant Physiology* 150: 1567-1575.

Li, D., and E. Gaquerel. 2021. "Next-Generation Mass Spectrometry Metabolomics Revives the Functional Analysis of Plant Metabolic Diversity." *Annual Review of Plant Biology* 72: 867-891.

Li, Z.-K., L. J. Luo, H. W. Mei, et al. 1999. "A 'Defeated' Rice Resistance Gene Acts as a QTL Against a Virulent Strain of Xanthomonas Oryzae pv. Oryzae." *Molecular and General Genetics MGG* 261: 58-63.

Li, Z.-K., A. Sanchez, E. Angeles, et al. 2001. "Are the Dominant and Recessive Plant Disease Resistance Genes Similar?: A Case Study of Rice R Genes and Xanthomonas Oryzae pv. Oryzae Races." *Genetics* 159: 757-765.
Lichman, B. R. 2021. "The Scaffold-Forming Steps of Plant Alkaloid Biosynthesis." *Natural Product Reports* 38: 103–129.

Louthan, A. M., and K. M. Kay. 2011. "Comparing the Adaptive Landscape Across Trait Types: Larger QTL Effect Size in Traits Under Biotic Selection." *BMC Evolutionary Biology* 11: 60.

Maag, D., C. Dalvit, D. Thevenet, et al. 2014. "3-β-D-Glucopyranosyl-6-Methoxy-2-Benzoxazolinone (MBOA-N-Glc) Is an Insect Detoxification Product of Maize 1,4-Benzoxazin-3-Ones." *Phytochemistry* 102: 97–105.

Macel, M., I. G. S. Visschers, J. L. Peters, I. F. Kappers, R. C. H. de Vos, and N. M. van Dam. 2019. "Metabolomics of Thrips Resistance in Pepper (Capsicum Spp.) Reveals Monomer and Dimer Acyclic Diterpene Glycosides as Potential Chemical Defenses." *Journal of Chemical Ecology* 45: 490–501.

Maharijaya, A., B. Vosman, K. Pelgrom, Y. Wahyuni, R. C. H. de Vos, and R. E. Voorrips. 2019. "Genetic Variation in Phytochemicals in Leaves of Pepper (Capsicum) in Relation to Thrips Resistance." *Arthropod-Plant Interactions* 13: 1–9.

Mansfeld, B. N., M. Colle, C. Zhang, Y.-C. Lin, and R. Grumet. 2020. "Developmentally Regulated Activation of Defense Allows for Rapid Inhibition of Infection in Age-Related Resistance to Phytophthora Capsici in Cucumber Fruit." *BMC Genomics* 21: 628.

Mansfield, K. L., C. Cook, R. J. Ellis, et al. 2017. "Tick-Borne Pathogens Induce Differential Expression of Genes Promoting Cell Survival and Host Resistance in Ixodes Ricinus Cells." *Parasites & Vectors* 10: 81.

Matsuura, H. N., and A. G. Fett-Neto. 2015. "Plant Alkaloids: Main Features, Toxicity, and Mechanisms of Action." In *Plant Toxins*, edited by P. Gopalakrishnakone, C. R. Carlini, and R. Ligabue-Braun, 1–15. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.

Mirnezhad, M., R. R. Romero-González, K. A. Leiss, Y. H. Choi, R. Verpoorte, and P. G. L. Klinkhamer. 2010. "Metabolomic Analysis of Host Plant Resistance to Thrips in Wild and Cultivated Tomatoes." *Phytochemical Analysis* 21: 110–117.

Mitreiter, S., and T. Gigolashvili. 2021. "Regulation of Glucosinolate Biosynthesis." *Journal of Experimental Botany* 72: 70–91.

Nagegowda, D. A., and P. Gupta. 2020. "Advances in Biosynthesis, Regulation, and Metabolic Engineering of Plant Specialized Terpenoids." *Plant Science* 294: 110457.

Nanda, S., R. Mishra, and R. K. Joshi. 2021. "Molecular Basis of Insect Resistance in Plants: Current Updates and Future Prospects." *Research Journal of Biotechnology* 16: 194.

Niks, R. E., X. Qi, and T. C. Marcel. 2015. "Quantitative Resistance to Biotrophic Filamentous Plant Pathogens: Concepts, Misconceptions, and Mechanisms." *Annual Review of Phytopathology* 53: 445–470.

Nothias, L.-F., D. Petras, R. Schmid, et al. 2020. "Feature-Based Molecular Networking in the GNPS Analysis Environment." *Nature Methods* 17: 905–908.

van den Oever-van den Elsen, F., A. F. Lucatti, S. van Heusden, et al. 2016. "Quantitative Resistance Against Bemisia Tabaci in Solanum Pennellii: Genetics and Metabolomics." *Journal of Integrative Plant Biology* 58: 397–412.

Olivon, F., G. Grelier, F. Roussi, M. Litaudon, and D. Touboul. 2017. "MZmine 2 Data-Preprocessing To Enhance Molecular Networking Reliability." *Analytical Chemistry* 89: 7836–7840.

Parlevliet, J. E. 2002. "Durability of Resistance Against Fungal, Bacterial and Viral Pathogens; Present Situation." *Euphytica* 124: 147–156.

Te Pas, M., O. Madsen, M. Calus, and M. Smits. 2017. "The Importance of Endophenotypes to Evaluate the Relationship Between Genotype and External Phenotype." *International Journal of Molecular Sciences* 18: 472.

Perez de Souza, L., and A. R. Fernie. 2024. "Computational Methods for Processing and Interpreting Mass Spectrometry-Based Metabolomics." *Essays in Biochemistry* 68: 5–13.

Pichersky, E., and R. A. Raguso. 2018. "Why Do Plants Produce so Many Terpenoid Compounds?" *New Phytologist* 220: 692–702.

Pilet-Nayel, M.-L., B. Moury, V. Caffier, et al. 2017. "Quantitative Resistance to Plant Pathogens in Pyramiding Strategies for Durable Crop Protection." *Frontiers in Plant Science* 8: 295209.

Poland, J. A., and R. J. Nelson. 2011. "In the Eye of the Beholder: The Effect of Rater Variability and Different Rating Scales on QTL Mapping." *Phytopathology*® 101: 290–298.

Ramaroson, M.-L., C. Koutouan, J.-J. Helesbeux, et al. 2022. "Role of Phenylpropanoids and Flavonoids in Plant Resistance to Pests and Diseases." *Molecules* 27: 8371.

Rogers, S., C. W. Ong, J. Wandy, M. Ernst, L. Ridder, and J. J. J. van der Hooft. 2019. "Deciphering Complex Metabolite Mixtures by Unsupervised and Supervised Substructure Discovery and Semi-Automated Annotation From MS/MS Spectra." *Faraday Discussions* 218: 284–302.

Rossouw, L. T., N. E. Madala, F. Tugizimana, P. A. Steenkamp, L. L. Esterhuizen, and I. A. Dubery. 2019. "Deciphering the Resistance Mechanism of Tomato Plants Against Whitefly-Mediated Tomato Curly Stunt Virus Infection Through Ultra-High-Performance Liquid Chromatography Coupled to Mass Spectrometry (UHPLC-MS)-Based Metabolomics Approaches." *Metabolites* 9: 60.

Roux, F., D. Voisin, T. Badet, et al. 2014. "Resistance to Phytopathogenesis Tutti Quanti: Placing Plant Quantitative Disease Resistance on the Map." *Molecular Plant Pathology* 15: 427–432.

Rowe, H. C., and D. J. Kliebenstein. 2008. "Complex Genetics Control Natural Variation in Arabidopsis Thaliana Resistance to Botrytis Cignerea." *Genetics* 180: 2237–2250.

Savary, S., L. Willocquet, S. J. Pethybridge, P. Esker, N. McRoberts, and A. Nelson. 2019. "The Global Burden of Pathogens and Pests on Major Food Crops." *Nature Ecology & Evolution* 3: 430–439.

Schauer, N., Y. Semel, U. Roessner, et al. 2006. "Comprehensive Metabolic Profiling and Phenotyping of Interspecific Introgression Lines for Tomato Improvement." *Nature Biotechnology* 24: 447–454.

Scott, M. F., O. Ladejobi, S. Amer, et al. 2020. "Multi-Parent Populations in Crops: A Toolbox Integrating Genomics and Genetic Mapping With Breeding." *Heredity* 125: 396–416.

Seybold, H., T. J. Demetrowitsch, M. A. Hassani, et al. 2020. "A Fungal Pathogen Induces Systemic Susceptibility and Systemic Shifts in Wheat Metabolome and Microbiome Composition." *Nature Communications* 11: 1910.

Wolf S., S. Schmidt, M. Müller-Hannemann, and S. Neumann. 2010. "In Silico Fragmentation for Computer Assisted Identification of Metabolite Mass Spectra." *BMC Bioinformatics* 11: 148.

Shi, T., A. Zhu, J. Jia, et al. 2020. "Metabolomics Analysis and Metabolite-Agronomic Trait Associations Using Kernels of Wheat (Triticum aestivum) Recombinant Inbred Lines." *Plant Journal* 103: 279–292.

Singh, A., B. Dilkes, H. Sela, and V. Tzin. 2021. "The Effectiveness of Physical and Chemical Defense Responses of Wild Emmer Wheat Against Aphids Depends on Leaf Position and Genotype." *Frontiers in Plant Science* 12: 667820.

Smith, C. M., T. Belay, C. Stauffer, P. Stary, I. Kubeckova, and S. Starkey. 2004. "Identification of Russian Wheat Aphid (Homoptera: Aphididae) Populations Virulent to the *Dn4* Resistance Gene." *Journal of Economic Entomology* 97: 1112–1117.

St.Clair, D. A. 2010. "Quantitative Disease Resistance and Quantitative Resistance Loci in Breeding." *Annual Review of Phytopathology* 48: 247–268.
Taye, R. R., and S. Borkataki. 2020. "Role of Secondary Metabolites in Plant Defense Against Insect Herbivores." *International Journal of Chemical Studies* 8: 200–203.

Varadi, M., D. Bertoni, P. Magana, et al. 2024. "AlphaFold Protein Structure Database in 2024: Providing Structure Coverage for over 214 Million Protein Sequences." *Nucleic Acids Research* 52: D368–D375.

Venegas-Molina, J., F. J. Molina-Hidalgo, E. Clicque, and A. Goossens. 2021. "Why and How to Dig into Plant Metabolite-Protein Interactions." *Trends in Plant Science* 26: 472–483.

Vezzulli, S., G. Malacarne, D. Masuero, et al. 2019. "The Rpv3-3 Haplotype and Stilbenoid Induction Mediate Downy Mildew Resistance in a Grapevine Interspecific Population." *Frontiers in Plant Science* 10: 234.

Vogt, T. 2010. "Phenylpropanoid Biosynthesis." *Molecular Plant* 3: 2–20.

Vollrath, P., H. S. Chawla, D. Alnajar, et al. 2021. "Dissection of Quantitative Blackleg Resistance Reveals Novel Variants of Resistance Gene Rlm9 in Elite Brassica Napus." *Frontiers in Plant Science* 12: 749491.

Vosman, B., A. Kashaninia, W. van't Westende, et al. 2019. "QTL Mapping of Insect Resistance Components of Solanum Galapagense." *Theoretical and Applied Genetics* 132: 531–541.

Wagner, G., A. Laperche, C. Lariagon, et al. 2019. "Resolution of Quantitative Resistance to Clubroot Into QTL-Specific Metabolic Modules." *Journal of Experimental Botany* 70: 5375–5390.

Wei, W., S. Li, P. Li, et al. 2023. "QTL Analysis of Important Agronomic Traits and Metabolites in Foxtail Millet (Setaria Italica) by RIL Population and Widely Targeted Metabolome." *Frontiers in Plant Science* 13: 1035906.

Xu, Y., P. Li, Z. Yang, and C. Xu. 2017. "Genetic Mapping of Quantitative Trait Loci in Crops." *Crop Journal* 5: 175–184.

Yang, Q., Y. He, M. Kabahuma, et al. 2017. "A Gene Encoding Maize Caffeoyl-CoA O-Methyltransferase Confers Quantitative Resistance to Multiple Pathogens." *Nature Genetics* 49: 1364–1372.

Yogendra, K. N., A. C. Kushalappa, F. Sarmiento, E. Rodriguez, and T. Mosquera. 2015. "Metabolomics Deciphers Quantitative Resistance Mechanisms in Diploid Potato Clones Against Late Blight." *Functional Plant Biology* 42: 284–298.

Yogendra, K. N., D. Pushpa, K. A. Mosa, A. C. Kushalappa, A. Murphy, and T. Mosquera. 2014. "Quantitative Resistance in Potato Leaves to Late Blight Associated With Induced Hydroxycinnamic Acid Amides." *Functional & Integrative Genomics* 14: 285–298.

Zaynab, M., M. Fatima, Y. Sharif, M. H. Zafar, H. Ali, and K. A. Khan. 2019. "Role of Primary Metabolites in Plant Defense Against Pathogens." *Microbial Pathogenesis* 137: 103728.

Zhang, Y., Z. Yang, H. Ma, et al. 2021. "Pyramiding of Fusarium Head Blight Resistance Quantitative Trait Loci, Fhb1, Fhb4, and Fhb5, in Modern Chinese Wheat Cultivars." *Frontiers in Plant Science* 12: 694023.

Zhou, Q., Z. Fu, H. Liu, et al. 2021. "Mining Novel Kernel Size-Related Genes by pQTL Mapping and Multi-Omics Integrative Analysis in Developing Maize Kernels." *Plant Biotechnology Journal* 19: 1489–1491.

Zhou, W., Y. Arcot, R. F. Medina, J. Bernal, L. Cisneros-Zevallos, and M. E. S. Akbulut. 2024. "Integrated Pest Management: An Update on the Sustainability Approach to Crop Protection." *ACS Omega* 9: 41130–41147.