4.7 Article

Fingerprinting of three typical macrosperma Italian lentil (Lens culinaris Medik.) landraces using fluorescence-based AFLP markers

期刊

SCIENTIA HORTICULTURAE
卷 121, 期 3, 页码 383-387

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.scienta.2009.02.006

关键词

Biodiversity; Genetic erosion; Genetic diversity; Molecular markers

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Italian lentil landraces are principally cultivated for self or local consumption. Most of them are disappearing, particularly macrosperma types by being less required by the market. A pre-requisite for the conservation and the efficient use of genetic resources is the better understanding of the extent and the distribution of the existing genetic variation, useful for future breeding programmes. Our study was undertaken to analyse and quantify the genetic diversity within and among three macrosperma Italian lentil landraces (Onano, Altamura and Villalba), using fluorescent AFLP markers. AFLP markers generated information to differentiate among closely related genotypes and group within the same cluster individuals belonging to the same landrace. The total genetic diversity (HT), the genetic diversity within population (H(S)) and the extent of differentiation between populations (D(ST)) were 0.198, 0.155 and 0.043, respectively. The fixation index (G(ST) = 0.219) showed that about 78% of the observed total genetic variation can be attributed to within population differences and around 22% is due to differences among populations. The gene flow estimate (N(m) = 1.774) and the mean genetic distance value (0.077) suggested narrow genetic base among the analysed populations, confirming the tendency of Italian lentil landraces to group together. The present Study showed that fluorescence-based AFLP technique is a biotechnological tool that can provide significant insights for research in genetic diversity of lentil landraces and their subsequent conservation and utilization in breeding programs. (C) 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据