4.6 Article

High-throughput SNP genotyping with the GoldenGate assay in maize

期刊

MOLECULAR BREEDING
卷 25, 期 3, 页码 441-451

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11032-009-9343-2

关键词

Single nucleotide polymorphism; Maize; Goldengate; High-throughput

资金

  1. National Hi-Tech Research and Development Program of China
  2. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) are abundant and evenly distributed throughout the genomes of most plant species. They have become an ideal marker system for genetic research in many crops. Several high throughput platforms have been developed that allow rapid and simultaneous genotyping of up to a million SNP markers. In this study, a custom GoldenGate assay containing 1,536 SNPs was developed based on public SNP information for maize and used to genotype two recombinant inbred line (RIL) populations (Zong3 x 87-1, and B73 x By804) and a panel of 154 diverse inbred lines. Over 90% of the SNPs were successfully scored in the diversity panel and the two RIL populations, with a genotyping error rate of less than 2%. A total of 975 SNP markers detected polymorphism in at least one of the two mapping populations, with a polymorphic rate of 38.5% in Zong3 x 87-1 and 52.6% in B73 x By804. The polymorphic SNPs in B73 x By804 have been integrated with previously mapped simple sequence repeat markers to construct a high-density linkage map containing 662 markers with a total length of 1,673.7 cM and an average of 2.53 cM between two markers. The minor allelic frequency (MAF) was distributed evenly across 10 continued classes from 0.05 to 0.5, and about 16% of the SNP markers had a MAF below 10% in the diversity panel. Polymorphism rates for individual SNP markers in pair-wise comparisons of genotypes tested ranged from 0.3 to 63.8% with an average of 36.3%. Most SNPs used in this GoldenGate assay appear to be equally useful for diversity analysis, marker-trait association studies, and marker-aided breeding.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据