4.7 Article

Genetic differences among 'Luotian-tianshi' (Diospyros kaki Thunb.) genotypes native to China revealed by ISSR and IRAP markers

Journal

SCIENTIA HORTICULTURAE
Volume 137, Issue -, Pages 75-80

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.scienta.2012.01.027

Keywords

Diospyros kaki Thunb. 'Luotian-tianshi'; ISSR; IRAP; Genetic differences

Categories

Funding

  1. Natural Science Foundation of China [31071771, 30921002]
  2. National Public Benefit (Agricultural) Research Foundation of China [200903044]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

'Luotian-tianshi' (Diospyros kaki Thunb.), which has been geographically distributed only in Dabieshan Mountain around the junction of Hubei, Henan and Anhui Province in central China, is believed to be the first PCNA (pollination-constant non-astringent) persimmon native to China. An informative scenario about the genetic diversity and phylogenetic relationships of this native PCNA cultivar is still lacking. To understand the genetic diversity, we have effectively utilized ISSR and IRAP markers to predict the genetic differences among 43 'Luotian-tianshi' genotypes collected from three major producing areas in China. A total number of 280 amplicons were observed ranging between 250 and 2000 bp using ISSR and IRAP markers. ISSR markers (100%) revealed a higher polymorphism than the IRAP markers (97.33%). On the basis of cluster analysis in the UPGMA dendrogram, we observed that in case of ISSR the genotypes were clustered into two clusters, whereas three main clusters were obtained by IRAP, indicating that 'Luotian-tianshi' genotypes existed the genetic differences and some could be potential germplasms because of the significant genetic differences, like Acc11, Acc36, Acc40 and Acc41. 'Luotian-tianshi' was a cultivar group rather than a single cultivar, and mutation and crossover might have happened in the evolution. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available