4.5 Article

Rosaceae conserved orthologous sequences marker polymorphism in sweet cherry germplasm and construction of a SNP-based map

期刊

TREE GENETICS & GENOMES
卷 8, 期 2, 页码 237-247

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11295-011-0436-9

关键词

Prunus; RosCOS; Diversity

资金

  1. USDA-NRI NIFA [2008-02259, 2005-00743]
  2. Washington Tree Fruit Research Commission

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Rosaceae Conserved Orthologous Set (RosCOS) provides a gene-based genome-wide set of markers that have been used in comparative analyses of peach (Prunus persica), apple (Malus x domestica), and strawberry (Fragaria spp.). In order to extend the use of these RosCOS to sweet cherry (Prunus avium L.), we identified markers that are polymorphic in breeding germplasm. Ninety-five percent (595/627) of previously designed RosCOS primer pairs amplified a product in six sweet cherry cultivars predicted to represent the range of genetic diversity in breeding germplasm. A total of 45% (282/627) RosCOS were polymorphic among the six cultivars, and allele number ranged from 2 to 6, with a genome-wide mean of 2.35. A subset of 92 genome-wide single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) corresponding to 76 RosCOS was analyzed in 36 founder accessions and progeny. The expected and observed heterozygosity suggested that 83% of the RosCOS were in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, implying that most RosCOS behave as neutral markers. Principal coordinate analysis (PCO) identified one wild accession and two Spanish landraces that clustered differently from the other accessions. The relatively high number of unique alleles found in the three differentially clustered selections suggested that their use as parents has potential to increase the genetic diversity in future US-bred cultivars. Of the 92 RosCOS SNPs, 81 SNPs that represented 68 genome-wide RosCOS segregated in four mapping populations. These RosCOS were mapped in four F-1 populations, thereby greatly improving the genetic linkage map of sweet cherry.

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

4.5
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