4.5 Article

Comparative mapping in Pinus: sugar pine (Pinus lambertiana Dougl.) and loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.)

Journal

TREE GENETICS & GENOMES
Volume 7, Issue 3, Pages 457-468

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11295-010-0347-1

Keywords

Linkage map; Single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP); Comparative mapping; Major gene resistance; Sequence-characterized amplified regions (SCARs)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The majority of genomic research in conifers has been conducted in the Pinus subgenus Pinus mostly due to the high economic importance of the species within this taxon. Genetic maps have been constructed for several of these pines and comparative mapping analyses have consistently revealed notable synteny. In contrast, little genomic research has been conducted on the Pinus subgenus Strobus, even though these pines have strong ecological relevance. We report a consensus genetic linkage map for sugar pine (Pinus lambertiana Dougl.) constructed with 399 single nucleotide polymorphisms markers derived from annotated genes. The map is 1,231 cM in length and organized into 19 linkage groups. Two of the mapping populations were derived from trees that were segregating for the major gene of resistance (Cr1) to Cronartium ribicola, the fungal pathogen responsible for white pine blister rust. The third mapping population was derived from a full-sib cross segregating for partial resistance to white pine blister rust. In addition, we report the first comparative mapping study between subgenera Strobus and Pinus. Sixty mapped markers were found in common between sugar pine and the loblolly pine reference map with 56 of them (93%) showing collinearity. All 19 linkage groups of the sugar pine consensus map coaligned to the 12 linkage groups of the loblolly pine reference map. The syntenic relationship observed between these two clades of pines provides a foundation for advancing genomic research and genetic resources in subgenus Strobus.

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