Genetic variability of commercially important apple varieties (Malus x domestica Borkh.) assessed by CDDP markers

Acta Fytotechnica et Zootechnica

View Publication Info
 
 
Field Value
 
Title Genetic variability of commercially important apple varieties (Malus x domestica Borkh.) assessed by CDDP markers
 
Creator Bilčíková, Jana
Farkasová, Silvia
Žiarovská, Jana
 
Description  Received: 2020-10-13 Accepted: 2021-02-08 Available online: 2021-02-28https://doi.org/10.15414/afz.2021.24.mi-apa.21-26Apple stand on the top of the most desirable and most produced fruit species in the world. Despite enormously wide geneticdiversity among existing apple varieties, the current market is mostly oriented on several cultivars of commercially attractivetraits. For the preservation of genetic resources and for breeding programmes, the evaluation of genetic diversity is fundamental.Number of marker systems have been developed and adopted in the assessment apple germplasm. In the present study, CDDPmarker technique was used to analyse polymorphism within the genomes of fifteen apple varieties which are of large commercialuse. Five primer combinations were used in the PCR amplification: WRKY-F1/WRKY-R1, WRKY-F1/WRKY-R2, WRKY-F1/WRKY-R2B,WRKY-F1/WRKY-R3 and WRKY-F1/WRKY-R3B. All primer combinations produced polymorphic amplification patterns. In someprimer combinations, identical amplification profiles were observed in few varieties, but amplification patterns of all combinationsmerged were specific for each apple variety. Identical profiles were only seen in Red Delicious and Granny Smith in F1/R1 primercombination, May Gold and Paula Red, and Selena and Melodie in F1/R2 primer combination and May Gold and Paula Red whenF1/R3B primers were used. Based on the CDDP markers, UPGMA algorithm assessed cultivars Paula Red and May Gold as themost similar (with similarity value of 0.909), whereas Gloster and Ambrosia showed to be the least similar within the analyzed set(similarity value of 0.200). The study proved CDDP markers to be suitable tool to produce polymorphic amplification patterns inapple genotypes.Keywords: conserved DNA-derived polymorphism, genetic variability, WRKY, DNA markersReferencesAouadi , M. et al. (2019). Conserved DNA-derived polymorphism, new markers for genetic diversity analysis of Tunisian Pistaciavera L. Physiology and Molecular Biology of Plants, 25(5), 1211–1223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12298-019-00690-4Atia, M. A. M. (2017). Assessing date palm genetic diversity using different molecular markers. Methods Mol Biol, 1638, 125–142.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-7159-6_12Collard, B. C. and Mackill, D. J. (2009). Conserved DNA-derived polymorphism (CDDP): a simple and novel method forgenerating DNA markers in plants. Plant Molecular Biology Reporter, 27(4), 558–562. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11105-009-0118-zCornille, A. et al. (2014). The domestication and evolutionary ecology of apples. Trends in Genetics, 30(2), 57–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tig.2013.10.002Davila , J. A. et al. (1998). The use of random amplified microsatellite polymorphic DNA and coefficients of parentage todetermine genetic relationships in barley. Genome, 41, 477–486. https://doi.org/10.1139/g98-044Dar , J. A. et al. (2020). Assessment of Apple (Malus × domestica Bark.) Germplasm of Kashmir Using RAPD Markers. InternationalJournal of Fruit Science, 20(3), 635–645. https://doi.org/10.1080/15538362.2019.1639583Gardiner, S. E. et al. (1996). Isozyme, randomly amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD), and restriction fragment-lengthpolymorphism (RFLP) markers used to deduce a putative parent for the ‘Braeburn’ apple. Journal of the American Societyfor Horticultural Science, 121(6), 996–1001. https://doi.org/10.21273/JASHS.121.6.99Goulao , L. et al. (2001). Comparing RAPD and AFLPTM analysis in discrimination and estimation of genetic similarities amongapple (Malus domestica Borkh.) cultivars. Euphytica, 119(3), 259–270. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017519920447Goulao , L. and Oliveira , C.M. (2001). Molecular characterisation of cultivars of apple (Malus × domestica Borkh.) usingmicrosatellite (SSR and ISSR) markers. Euphytica, 122, 81–89. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012691814643Gross , B. L. (2014). Genetic diversity in Malus × domestica (Rosaceae) through time in response to domestication. AmericanJournal of Botany, 101(10), 1770–1779. https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.1400297Hajibarat , Z. et al. (2015). Characterization of genetic diversity in chickpea using SSR markers, start codon targetedpolymorphism (SCoT) and conserved DNA-derived polymorphism (CDDP). Physiol Mol Biol Plants, 21(3), 365–373. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12298-015-0306-2Jiang, L. and Zang, D. (2018). Analysis of genetic relationships in Rosa rugosa using conserved DNA-derived polymorphismmarkers. Biotechnol Biotechnol Equip, 32(1), 88–94. https://doi.org/10. 1080/13102818.2017.1407255Kafkas , S. et al. (2008). Molecular characterization of mulberry accessions in Turkey by AFLP markers. J Am Soc Hort Sci, 4,593–597. https://doi.org/10.21273/JASHS.133.4.593Kyse ľ, M. et al. (2019). Marker profiling of wheat with different drought tolerance by CDDP. Journal of Microbiology, Biotechnologyand Food Sciences, 9(4), 1220–1222. https://doi.org/10.15414/jmbfs.2019.8.5.1220-1222Li, T. et al. (2013). Genetic diversity assessment of chrysanthemum germplasm using conserved DNA-derived polymorphismmarkers. Sci Hortic, 162, 271–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2013.08.027Li, Y. Y. and Zheng, C. S. (2013). Genetic diversity of Tree Peony cultivar resources in Heze Revealed by CDDP Marker. ScientiaAgric Sin, 46(13), 2739–2750.Li, T. et al. (2014). Genetic diversity and construction of fingerprinting of chrysanthemum cultivars by CDDP markers. J BeijingFor Univ, 36(4), 95–101. https://doi.org/10.13332/j.cnki.jbfu.2014.04.018Myles , S. et al. (2011). Genetic structure and domestication history of the grape. Proceedings of the National Academy ofSciences, 108(9), 3530–3535. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1009363108Myles , S. (2013). Improving fruit and wine: what does genomics have to offer? Trends in Genetics, 29(4), 190–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tig.2013.01.006Nei, M. (1973). Analysis of gene diversity in subdivided populations. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., (70), 3321–3323. doi: 10.1073/pnas.70.12.3321Oraguzie , N. C. et al. (2001). Genetic diversity and relationships in Malus sp. germplasm collections as determined by randomlyamplified polymorphic DNA. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science, 126(3), 318–328. https://doi.org/10.21273/JASHS.126.3.318Oraguzie , N.C. et al. (2005). DNA fingerprinting of apple (Malus spp.) rootstocks using Simple Sequence Repeats. PlantBreeding, 124, 197–202. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0523.2004.01064.xPavlovic , N. et al. (2012). Characterization of onion genotypes by use of RAPD markers. Genetika, 2, 269–278. https://doi.org/10.2298/GENSR1202269PPereira -Lorenzo , S. et al. (2007). Evaluation of genetic identity and variation of local apple cultivars (Malus × domestica) fromSpain using microsatellite markers. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution, 54(2), 405–420. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10722-006-0003-7Royo , J. B. and Itoiz , R. (2004). Evaluation of the discriminance capacity of RAPD, isoenzymes and morphologic markers inapple (Malus × domestica Borkh.) and the congruence among classifications. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution. 51(2), 153–160.https://doi.org/10.1023/B:GRES.0000020857.29125.2bSansavini , S. et al. (2004). Advances in apple breeding for enhanced fruit quality and resistance to biotic stresses: new varietiesfor the European market. J Fruit Orn Plant Res, 12, 13–51.Tignon, M. et al. (2001). Distinction between closely related apple cultivars of the belle-fleur family using RFLP and AFLPmarkers. Acta Horticulturae, 546, 509–513. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2001.546.70Velasco , R. et al. (2010). The genome of the domesticated apple (Malus × domestica Borkh.). Nat Genet., 42(10), 833–839.https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.654Wang, X. et al. (2014). Analysis of genetic relationships in tree peony of different colors using conserved DNA-derivedpolymorphism markers. Sci Hortic, 175, 68–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2014.05.026Way, R. (1990). Apples. In Moore, J. and Ballington, J. (eds.): Genetic resources of temperate fruit and nut crops. International societyfor horticultural science, Wageningen, Netherlands, pp. 1–62.WAPA (2019). European apple forecast. Available at: http://www.wapa-association.org/docs/2019/European_summary_reduced.pdfYeh, F.C., Yang, R.C. and Boyle , T. (1999). Popgene Software Package Version 1.31 for Population Genetic Analysis. Universityof Alberta; Edmonton, AB, Canada.Žiarovská, J. et al. (2019). Restriction polymorphism of Mal d 1 allergen promotor in apple varieties. Journal of Microbiology,Biotechnology and Food Sciences, 8(5), 1217–1219. https://doi.org/10.15414/jmbfs.2019.8.5.1217-1219
 
Publisher Acta Fytotechnica et Zootechnica
 
Contributor
 
Date 2021-02-26
 
Type info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion

 
Format application/pdf
 
Identifier http://www.acta.fapz.uniag.sk/journal/index.php/on_line/article/view/793
 
Source Acta Fytotechnica et Zootechnica; Vol 24 (2021): Actual Concepts in Agrobiology::Invited Editor: Ing. Jaroslav Andreji, PhD.
1336-9245
1336-9245
 
Language eng
 
Relation http://www.acta.fapz.uniag.sk/journal/index.php/on_line/article/view/793/pdf
 
Rights Copyright (c) 2021 Acta Fytotechnica et Zootechnica
 

Contact Us

The PKP Index is an initiative of the Public Knowledge Project.

For PKP Publishing Services please use the PKP|PS contact form.

For support with PKP software we encourage users to consult our wiki for documentation and search our support forums.

For any other correspondence feel free to contact us using the PKP contact form.

Find Us

Twitter

Copyright © 2015-2018 Simon Fraser University Library