4.6 Article

Fingerprinting, embryo type and geographic differentiation in mango (Mangifera indica L., Anacardiaceae) with microsatellites

Journal

MOLECULAR BREEDING
Volume 15, Issue 4, Pages 383-393

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11032-004-7982-x

Keywords

germplasm resources; molecular markers; SSRs; tropical fruits

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We report the sequence and variability parameters of 16 microsatellite primer pairs obtained from two mango (Mangifera indica L.) genomic libraries after digestion of DNA of the cultivar Tommy Atkins with HaeIII and RsaI and enrichment in CT repeats. Although no significant differences were recorded between the two libraries in the informativeness of the markers obtained, the RsaI library was shown to be more useful than the HaeIII taking into account the efficiency of the library and the feasibility of clone sequencing. The polymorphism revealed by those microsatellites was evaluated in a collection of 28 mango cultivars of different origins. A total of 88 fragments were detected with the 16 simple sequence repeats (SSRs) with an average of 5.5 bands/SSR. Two primer pairs amplified more than a single locus. The mean expected and observed heterozygosities over the 14 single-locus SSRs averaged 0.65 and 0.69 respectively. The total value for the probability of identity was 2.74 x 10(-9). The SSRs studied allowed the unambiguous identification of all the mango genotypes studied and this discrimination can be carried out with just three selected microsatellites. UPGMA cluster analysis and Principal coordinates analysis group the genotypes according to their origin and their classification as monoembryonic or polyembryonic types reflecting the pedigree of the cultivars and the movement of mango germplasm. The results demonstrate the usefulness of microsatellites for studies on identification, variability, germplasm conservation, domestication and movement of germplasm in mango.

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