4.4 Article

Characterization of genetic diversity in chickpea using SSR markers, Start Codon Targeted Polymorphism (SCoT) and Conserved DNA-Derived Polymorphism (CDDP)

期刊

PHYSIOLOGY AND MOLECULAR BIOLOGY OF PLANTS
卷 21, 期 3, 页码 365-373

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12298-015-0306-2

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To evaluate the genetic diversity among 48 genotypes of chickpea comprising cultivars, landraces and internationally developed improved lines genetic distances were evaluated using three different molecular marker techniques: Simple Sequence Repeat (SSR); Start Codon Targeted (SCoT) and Conserved DNA-derived Polymorphism (CDDP). Average polymorphism information content (PIC) for SSR, SCoT and CDDP markers was 0.47, 0.45 and 0.45, respectively, and this revealed that three different marker types were equal for the assessment of diversity amongst genotypes. Cluster analysis for SSR and SCoT divided the genotypes in to three distinct clusters and using CDDP markers data, genotypes grouped in to five clusters. There were positive significant correlation (r = 0.43, P < 0.01) between similarity matrix obtained by SCoT and CDDP. Three different marker techniques showed relatively same pattern of diversity across genotypes and using each marker technique it's obvious that diversity pattern and polymorphism for varieties were higher than that of genotypes, and CDDP had superiority over SCoT and SSR markers. These results suggest that efficiency of SSR, SCOT and CDDP markers was relatively the same in fingerprinting of chickpea genotypes. To our knowledge, this is the first detailed report of using targeted DNA region molecular marker (CDDP) for genetic diversity analysis in chickpea in comparison with SCoT and SSR markers. Overall, our results are able to prove the suitability of SCoT and CDDP markers for genetic diversity analysis in chickpea for their high rates of polymorphism and their potential for genome diversity and germplasm conservation.

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

4.4
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