4.5 Article

Genetic diversity in peach [Prunus persica (L.) Batsch] at the University of Florida: past, present and future

期刊

TREE GENETICS & GENOMES
卷 10, 期 5, 页码 1399-1417

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11295-014-0769-2

关键词

Population structure; Loci under selection; Stone fruit; Breeding; Genetics; Low chill

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The University of Florida (UF) stone fruit breeding and genetics program was created in 1952 to develop early ripening stone fruit cultivars with high quality, adaptation to summer rainfall, low chilling requirements, and the ability to withstand high disease pressure. Diverse germplasm sources were used to introduce desirable traits in UF breeding pool. The main objective of this research was to determine the genetic diversity and population structure of the breeding germplasm, and to search for loci under selection. A total of 195 peach genotypes were used: UF cultivars and advanced selections (n = 168), cultivars and selections from the UF-UGA-USDA joint breeding effort (n = 13), landrace cultivars (n = 4), high-chilling cultivars released by NCSU (n = 5), and related Prunus (n = 5) species. A total of 36 SSR markers distributed across the peach genome amplified 423 alleles. An average of 18 genotypes were detected per marker: A (number of observed alleles) of 11.43, Ae (effective number of alleles) of 2.58, Ho (observed heterozygosity) of 0.4, He (expected heterozygosity) of 0.52, F (Wright's fixation index) of 0.25, and PIC (polymorphism information content) of 0.48. UPGMA cluster analysis based on Nei's genetic distance represented best the known pedigree information for the germplasm pools. Two major groups were observed across the germplasm corresponding to melting and non-melting flesh cultivars/selections. Population structure results supported these two major groups. Several loci closely located to genome regions where different phenotypic traits have been previously mapped were detected to be under selection.

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

4.5
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