4.5 Article

Genetic population structure of Osmunda japonica, rheophilous Osmunda lancea and their hybrids

Journal

JOURNAL OF PLANT RESEARCH
Volume 122, Issue 6, Pages 585-595

Publisher

SPRINGER JAPAN KK
DOI: 10.1007/s10265-009-0254-4

Keywords

Rheophyte; Osmunda; Hybrid; Expressed sequence tag; Simple sequence repeat; Cleaved amplified polymorphic sequence; Genetic population structure

Categories

Funding

  1. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science [1806295, 20247006]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [20247006] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Rheophilous Osmunda lancea often hybridizes with a dryland ally, Osmunda japonica, to produce O. x intermedia, forming zonation in riverbanks and the adjacent dryland along flooding frequency clines. This study examined the genetic structure of populations consisting of O. x intermedia and the two parental species by analyzing ten nuclear DNA markers [six cleaved amplified polymorphic sequence (CAPS) markers and three simple sequence repeat (SSR) markers developed from an expressed sequence tag (EST) library, and the sequence of the glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase gene GapCp] and chloroplast DNA sequences. The results suggest that the nuclear genes of O. japonica and O. lancea are genetically differentiated despite shared polymorphism in their chloroplast DNA sequences. This discrepancy may be attributable to natural selection and recent introgression, although it is not evident if introgression occurs between O. japonica and O. lancea in the examined populations. Our findings of putative F2 hybrids in O. x intermedia support its partial reproducibility, and also suggest that formation of later-generation hybrids generates morphological variation in O. x intermedia. O. lancea plants collected from geographically distant localities were genetically very similar, and it is suggested that O. lancea originated monotopically.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available