4.4 Article

Cytological characterization of sunflower by in situ hybridization using homologous rDNA sequences and a BAC clone containing highly represented repetitive retrotransposon-like sequences

Journal

GENOME
Volume 53, Issue 3, Pages 172-179

Publisher

CANADIAN SCIENCE PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1139/G09-097

Keywords

karyotype; BAG-FISH; rDNA; repetitive elements; sunflower; Helianthus annuus

Funding

  1. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cientificas y Tecnicas (PIP CONICET) [5927]
  2. Universidad de Buenos Aires (UBACYT) [X317, X178, X-101, X446]
  3. Agencia Nacional de Promocion Cientifica y Tecnologica (PICT) [30-14119]
  4. Instituto Nacional de Tecnologia Agropecuaria, Argentina [1952, 1433]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In the present work we report new tools for the characterization of the complete chromosome complement of sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.), using a bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) clone containing repetitive sequences with similarity to retrotransposons and a homologous rDNA sequence isolated from the sunflower genome as probes for FISH. The rDNA signal was found in 3 pairs of chromosomes, coinciding with the location of satellites. The BAC clone containing highly represented retroelements hybridized with all the chromosome complement in FISH, and used together with the rDNA probe allowed the discrimination of all chromosome pairs of sunflower. Their distinctive distribution pattern suggests that these probes could be useful for karyotype characterization and for chromosome identification. The karyotype could be subdivided into 3 clear-cut groups of 12 metacentric pairs, 1 submetacentric pair, and 4 subtelocentric pairs, thus resolving previously described karyotype controversies. The use of BAG clones containing single sequences of specific markers and (or) genes associated with important agricultural traits represents an important tool for future locus-specific identification and physical mapping.

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