4.6 Article

Single primer amplification reaction (SPAR) methods reveal subsequent increase in genetic variations in micropropagated plants of Nepenthes khasiana Hook. f. Maintained for three consecutive regenerations

Journal

GENE
Volume 538, Issue 1, Pages 23-29

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.gene.2014.01.028

Keywords

Nepenthes khasiana; Nodal segments; Micropropagation; Genetic fidelity; Polymorphism; SPAR analysis

Funding

  1. Department of Biotechnology, Government of India, New Delhi, India [BT/PR-7055/BCE/08/437/2006, BT/04/NE/2009]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The genetic fidelity of in vitro-raised plants of three successive regenerations of Nepenthes khasiana Hook. f. was assessed using three different single primer amplification reaction (SPAR) methods, viz., random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD), inter-simple sequence repeat (ISSR) and direct amplification of minisatellite DNA region (DAMD) markers. Out of 80 RAPD primers screened, 14 primers reflected a genetic variation of 4.1% in the first regeneration which was increased to 9.4% in the third regeneration. In the case of ISSR, out of 36 primers screened for assessment of genetic homogeneity of the regenerated plantlets, 12 primers showed an increase of genetic variation from 4.3% to 10% from the first to the third regenerations. In DAMD profiling, 15 primers were used for the evaluation of genetic fidelity where 8.47% of polymorphism was observed in the first regeneration which was increased to 13.33% in the third regeneration. The cumulative analysis reflected a genetic variation of 5.65% in the first regeneration which increased subsequently to 7.77% in the second regeneration and 10.87% in the third regeneration. The present study demonstrates SPAR technique to be an efficient tool for the assessment of clonal fidelity of in vitro-raised plants. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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