4.7 Article

Genetic dissection of a modern sugarcane cultivar (Saccharum spp.).: I.: Genome mapping with AFLP markers

Journal

THEORETICAL AND APPLIED GENETICS
Volume 103, Issue 1, Pages 84-97

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s001220000390

Keywords

AFLP; chromosome pairing; genetic map; polyploidy; sugarcane

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Sugarcane cultivars are polyploid, aneuploid clones derived from interspecific hybridization between Saccharum officinarum and S. spontaneum. Their genome has recently started to be unravelled as a result of the development of molecular markers. We constructed an AFLP genetic map based on a selfing population of a specific cultivar. R570. Using 37 AFLP primer pairs. we detected 1,185 polymorphic markers of which 939 were simplex (segregated 3:1); these were used to construct the map. Of those 939. 887 were distributed on 120 cosegregation groups (CGs) based on linkages in coupling, while 52 remained unlinked. The cumulative length of all the groups was 5.849 cM. which is probably around one-third of the total genome length. Comparison with reference S. officinarum clones enabled us to assign I I and 79 CGs to S. spontaneum and S. officinarum. respectively, whereas I I CGs were probably derived from recombination between chromosomes of the two ancestral species. The patchy size of the groups, which ranges from I to 232 cM, illustrates the difficulty to access large portions of chromosomes, particularly those inherited from S. officinarum. Repulsion phase linkages suggested a high preferential pairing for 13 CG pairs. Out of the 120 CGs. 34 could be assigned to one of the 10 homo(eo)logy groups already defined in a previous RFLP map owing to the use of a small common marker set. The genome coverage was significantly increased in the map reported here. Implications for quantitative trait loci (QTL) research and marker-assisted breeding perspectives are discussed.

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