4.6 Article

A consensus map for Cucurbita pepo

Journal

MOLECULAR BREEDING
Volume 20, Issue 4, Pages 375-388

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11032-007-9098-6

Keywords

DNA markers; Cucurbita moschata; BSA; seed coat; ZYMV; SCAR-marker

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Using random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD), amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP), simple sequence repeats (SSR), and morphological traits, the first genetic maps for Cucurbita pepo (2n=2x=40) were constructed and compared. The two mapping populations consisted of 92 F-2 individuals each. One map was developed from a cross between an oil-seed pumpkin breeding line and a zucchini accession, into which genes for resistance to Zucchini Yellow Mosaic Virus (ZYMV) from a related species, C. moschata, had been introgressed. The other map was developed from a cross between an oil-seed pumpkin and a crookneck variety. A total of 332 and 323 markers were mapped in the two populations. Markers were distributed in each map over 21 linkage groups and covered an average of 2,200 cM of the C. pepo genome. The two maps had 62 loci in common, which enabled identification of 14 homologous linkage groups. Polyacrylamide gel analyses allowed detection of a high number of markers suitable for mapping, 10% of which were co-dominant RAPD loci. In the Pumpkin-Zucchini population, bulked segregant analysis (BSA) identified seven markers less than 7 cM distant from the locus n, affecting lignification of the seed coat. One of these markers, linked to the recessive hull-less allele (AW11-420), was also found in the Pumpkin-Crookneck population, 4 cM from n. In the Pumpkin-Zucchini population, 24 RAPD markers, previously introduced into C. pepo from C. moschata, were mapped in two linkage groups (13 and 11 markers in LGpz1 and LGpz2, respectively), together with two sequence characterized amplified region (SCAR) markers linked to genes for resistance to ZYMV.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available