INVESTIGATION OF PLUM VARIETY DIVERSITY USING SSR MARKERS
Abstract
Genetic diversity of the 50 plum accessions (species and varieties) cultivated in Belarus was studied by the SSR analysis using 20 markers. On the average 17.7 and 13.3 alleles were identified among domestic and diploid plum accessions respectively. Percentage of the unique genotypes were 0.681 and 0.552 and discrimination power levels were 0.811 and 0.741 for domestic and diploid plum accessions respectively. Cluster analysis allowed division of almost all accessions into two big groups according to their ploidy level. Genetic distances between the diploid plum varieties belonging to different species or interspecific hybrids were similar to the distances between intraspecific ones that indicates on low interspecific differentiation of diploid plum.
About the Authors
O. Yu. URBANOVICH
Институт генетики и цитологии НАН Беларуси, Минск
Belarus
Belarus
P. V. KUZMITSKAYA
Институт генетики и цитологии НАН Беларуси, Минск
Belarus
Belarus
Z. A. KAZLOUSKAYA
Институт плодоводства, Самохваловичи
Belarus
Belarus
References
1. Самусь В. А. // Наука и инновации. 2012. Т. 112. С. 4–6.
2. Horvath A., Balsemin E., Barbot J.-C. et al. // Scientia Horticulturae. 2011. Vol. 129. P. 283–293.
3. Dirlewanger E., Graziano E., Joobeur T. et al. // Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2004. Vol. 101, N 26. P. 9891–9896.
4. Jung S., Jiwan D., Cho I. et al. // BMC Genomics. 2009. Vol. 10, N 76. P. 1–17.
5. Genome Mapping and Breeding in Plants: Fruits and Nuts. Berlin; Heidelberg, 2007. – 370 p.
6. Dirlewanger E., Cosson P., Tavaud M. et al. // Theor. Appl. Genet. 2002. Vol. 105. P. 127–138.
7. Clarke J. B., Tobbutt K. R. // Mol. Ecol. Notes. 2003. Vol. 3. P. 578–580.
8. Kloosterman A. D., Budowle B., Daselaar P. // Int. J. Leg. Med. 1993. Vol. 105. P. 257–264.
9. Nei M., Li W. H. // Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 1979. Vol. 76. P. 5269–5273.
10. Van de Peer Y., De Wachter R. // Comput. Applic. Biosci. 1993. Vol. 9. P. 177–182.
11. Carrasco B., Diaz C., Moya M. et al. // Ciencia Investigation Agrara. 2012. Vol. 39, N 3. P. 533–543.
12. Ahmad D. D., Potter D., Southwick S. M. // Hort. Science Biotech. 2004. Vol. 79. P. 164–169.
13. Mnejja M., Garcia-Mas J., Howad W. et al. // Molecular Ecology Notes. 2004. Vol. 4. P. 163–166.
14. Öz M. H., Vurgun H., Bakir M. et al. // Genetics and Moleculr Research. 2013. Vol. 12, N 4. P. 5310–5320.
15. Reales A., Sargent D. J., Tobbutt K. R. et al. // Tree Genet. and Genom. 2010. Vol. 6. P. 37–45.
Review
Views: 811
Email this article 