4.7 Article

EST, COSII, and arbitrary gene markers give similar estimates of nucleotide diversity in cultivated tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.)

Journal

THEORETICAL AND APPLIED GENETICS
Volume 118, Issue 5, Pages 1005-1014

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00122-008-0957-2

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. CRIS [1907-21000-006-00D]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Because cultivated tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) is low in genetic diversity, public, verified single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) markers within the species are in demand. To promote marker development we resequenced approximately 23 kb in a diverse set of 31 tomato lines including TA496. Three classes of markers were sampled: (1) 26 expressed-sequence tag (EST), all of which were predicted to be polymorphic based on TA496, (2) 14 conserved ortholog set II (COSII) or unigene, and (3) ten published sequences, composed of nine fruit quality genes and one anonymous RFLP marker. The latter two types contained mostly noncoding DNA. In total, 154 SNPs and 34 indels were observed. The distributions of nucleotide diversity estimates among marker types were not significantly different from each other. Ascertainment bias of SNPs was evaluated for the EST markers. Despite the fact that the EST markers were developed using SNP prediction within a sample consisting of only one TA496 allele and one additional allele, the majority of polymorphisms in the 26 EST markers were represented among the other 30 tomato lines. Fifteen EST markers with published SNPs were more closely examined for bias. Mean SNP diversity observations were not significantly different between the original discovery sample of two lines (53 SNPs) and the 31 line diversity panel (56 SNPs). Furthermore, TA496 shared its haplotype with at least one other line at 11 of the 15 markers. These data demonstrate that public EST databases and noncoding regions are a valuable source of unbiased SNP markers in tomato.

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