4.3 Article

Development of AFLP and STS markers linked to a waterlogging tolerance in Korean soybean landraces

期刊

BIOLOGIA PLANTARUM
卷 54, 期 1, 页码 61-68

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10535-010-0009-z

关键词

chlorophyll; Glycine max; malondialdehyde; MAS; UPGMA

资金

  1. KOSEF (Korean Science and Engineering Foundation) in the MoST (Ministry of Science and Technology), Republic of Korea

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Among the 400 soybean (Glycine max) landraces, we selected 3 tolerant (KAS150-9, KAS160-15, and KAS170-9) and 3 susceptible lines (KAS160-14, KAS160-20, and KAS201-6-1) by the survival percentage and injury scores. Susceptible lines showed decrease in chlorophyll content and increase in glucose and malondialdehyde (MDA) contents under waterlogging stress, while tolerant lines did not change significantly. For AFLP analysis, 8 EcoRI (+3) and 8 MseI (+3) primers used in 32 primer combinations generated a total of 2 566 bands with a mean of 80 bands per primer combination, of which 1 117 (43.5%) were clearly polymorphic between the tolerant and susceptible lines. A genetic similarity coefficient, based on cluster analysis using an unweighted pair grouping method of average (UPGMA), was 0.79 for the tolerant group, while the susceptible landraces were genetically less related, with a genetic similarity coefficient of 0.17. The 10 reproducible polymorphic PCR products present in the 3 tolerant or susceptible lines were sequenced and converted into sequence tagged site (STS) markers. These STS primer sets were designated GmWT01-GmWT06 and GmWS01-GmWS04. Two STS primer sets, GmWT06 and GmWS02, generated a single monomorphic PCR product identical in size to the original AFLP fragments. For the broad application of these STS markers in marker-assisted selection (MAS) for soybean genotypes tolerant to waterlogging stress, two developed STS markers are being evaluated with putative waterlogging tolerant mutant lines induced by gamma-radiation in soybean mutation breeding programs.

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

4.3
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