4.6 Article

Natural Allelic Diversity, Genetic Structure and Linkage Disequilibrium Pattern in Wild Chickpea

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 9, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0107484

关键词

-

资金

  1. Department of Biotechnology (DBT), Government of India [102/IFD/SAN/2161/2013-14]
  2. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR)
  3. Department of Biotechnology (DBT)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Characterization of natural allelic diversity and understanding the genetic structure and linkage disequilibrium (LD) pattern in wild germplasm accessions by large-scale genotyping of informative microsatellite and single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) markers is requisite to facilitate chickpea genetic improvement. Large-scale validation and high-throughput genotyping of genome-wide physically mapped 478 genic and genomic microsatellite markers and 380 transcription factor gene-derived SNP markers using gel-based assay, fluorescent dye-labelled automated fragment analyser and matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight (MALDI-TOF) mass array have been performed. Outcome revealed their high genotyping success rate (97.5%) and existence of a high level of natural allelic diversity among 94 wild and cultivated Cicer accessions. High intra- and inter-specific polymorphic potential and wider molecular diversity (11-94%) along with a broader genetic base (13-78%) specifically in the functional genic regions of wild accessions was assayed by mapped markers. It suggested their utility in monitoring introgression and transferring target trait-specific genomic (gene) regions from wild to cultivated gene pool for the genetic enhancement. Distinct species/gene pool-wise differentiation, admixed domestication pattern, and differential genome-wide recombination and LD estimates/decay observed in a six structured population of wild and cultivated accessions using mapped markers further signifies their usefulness in chickpea genetics, genomics and 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