4.4 Article

Evaluation of genetic variability of wild hops (Humulus lupulus L.) in Canada and the Caucasus region by chemical and molecular methods

Journal

GENOME
Volume 53, Issue 7, Pages 545-557

Publisher

CANADIAN SCIENCE PUBLISHING, NRC RESEARCH PRESS
DOI: 10.1139/G10-024

Keywords

hop resins; polyphenols; essential oils; SSR and STS analyses; genetic resources; phylogenetic analysis

Funding

  1. Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic [ME832, MSM1486434701]
  2. Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech Republic

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Wild hops (Humulus lupulus L.) are potential new germplasms to expand the variability of genetic resources for hop breeding. We evaluated Canadian (62 plants) and Caucasian (58 plants) wild hops by their chemical characteristics and with molecular genetic analyses using sequence-tagged site and simple sequence repeat markers, in comparison with European (104 plants) and North American (27 plants) wild hops. The contents of alpha and beta acids varied from 0.36% to 5.11% and from 0.43% to 6.66% in Canadian wild hops, and from 0.85% to 3.65% and from 1.22% to 4.81% in Caucasian wild hops, respectively. The contents of cohumulone and colupulone distinctly differed between European and North American wild hops: the cohumulone level in alpha acids was in the range 46.1%-68.4% among North American wild hops and in the range 13.6%-30.6% among European wild hops. The high content of myrcene and the low contents of humulene, farnesene, and selinenes were typical for wild hops from Canada, in contrast to wild hops from the Caucasus region. We compared the chemical characteristics with molecular genetic data. Chemical characteristics differentiated wild hops into North American and Eurasian groups. Molecular genetic analysis was able to separate Caucasian wild hops from European wild hops. We proved a hop phylogeny by means of wide molecular analysis.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available